Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:10, 24 July 2020

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Manual of Style/Layout page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Shortcut WT:MOSLAYOUT

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15Auto-archiving period: 3 months

Format of appendicesBefore proposing a change to the standard appendices, please study Misplaced Pages:Perennial proposals § Changes to standard appendices.

Manual of Style

This page falls within the scope of the Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style, a collaborative effort focused on enhancing clarity, consistency, and cohesiveness across the Manual of Style (MoS) guidelines by addressing inconsistencies, refining language, and integrating guidance effectively.Manual of StyleWikipedia:WikiProject Manual of StyleTemplate:WikiProject Manual of StyleManual of Style This page falls under the contentious topics procedure and is given additional attention, as it closely associated to the English Misplaced Pages Manual of Style, and the article titles policy. Both areas are subjects of debate. Contributors are urged to review the awareness criteria carefully and exercise caution when editing. For information on Misplaced Pages's approach to the establishment of new policies and guidelines, refer to WP:PROPOSAL. Additionally, guidance on how to contribute to the development and revision of Misplaced Pages policies of Misplaced Pages's policy and guideline documents is available, offering valuable insights and recommendations.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Manual of Style/Layout page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15Auto-archiving period: 3 months

MOS:ORDER in regards to Template:Featured article, Template:Good article, and similar templates

So ... I'm looking at MOS:ORDER's target, and it says nothing about where templates such as {{Featured article}} and {{Good article}} should go. If I had to guess, they would be placed with the "Deletion/Protection tags (CSD, PROD, AFD, PP notices)" section, but that, of course, is just my thought. Either way, this information obviously needs to be added to this page; so ... where should they go? Steel1943 (talk) 19:06, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Steel1943, please see the sublist under item 4 "End matter": 5. {{Featured list}}, {{Featured article}} and {{Good article}} (where appropriate for article status). Also, there is a related ongoing discussion (albeit it slowed down) at #Nothing should go between navboxes and authority control. —⁠andrybak (talk) 19:45, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

• Yay, I can't see stuff. Disregard my silliness. Steel1943 (talk) 20:58, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

A bot to move incorrectly placed hatnotes?

I often see hatnotes placed below maintenance templates, and occasionally also below infoboxes. I'm thinking of asking for a bot to go around and move such hatnotes back up where they belong according (per MOS:ORDER and WP:HATNOTEPLACE). Does anybody think this might not be a good idea?

The main question is whether such a bot should only move a hatnote if this is going to make a visual difference, and so skip e.g. hatnotes that only have engvar templates or protection icons above them, or if it should move all "incorrectly" placed hatnotes even if this means that no changes will result in the rendered page. The former has the advantage of avoiding flooding watchlists with minor, almost cosmetic, edits, while the latter should be easier to program and would result in greater consistency in what appears in the editing interface. Thoughts? – Uanfala (talk) 23:28, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

I am for this! comrade waddie96 (talk) 12:05, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

@Uanfala: I fully support the creation of a bot; I spend a lot of time fixing these hatnotes when I see them! Of the two options you present, I support moving ALL incorrectly placed hatnotes, because part of the justification for WP:ORDER is stated as follows in WP:HNP: Text-based web browsers and screen readers present the page sequentially. Correctly placing all hatnotes would fix problems for these non-visual methods of display. — Goszei (talk) 09:07, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Do screen readers read maintenance templates? If not, WP:COSMETICBOT ought to be observed. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:53, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Why wouldn't they? Just in case, I've just tested with one screen reader simulator on a random page, and yes, it does read out the {{refimprove}} template; and because of all the links in there, it takes a very long time doing so. – Uanfala (talk) 15:49, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

I meant those that you mentioned earlier: engvar, protection, and use-date-format, citevar. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:50, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

RfC Verifiability in See also sections

I have encountered the claim that adding a link doesn't require a citation, even when WP:CHALLENGEd. (To be clear: I did not ask for an inline citation, merely that one be provided on the talk page.) Another editor subsequently claimed that MOS:SEEALSO's criterion of "editorial judgment and common sense" is among the things that go beyond the verifiabilty principle.

My reasoning is that, since See also links have to be relevant, adding a link comes with the implicit claim that the linked topic is relevant to the one at hand. In this particular instance, the stronger claim was made that the linked topic is an instance of the topic linked from. Since all content must be verifiable, I don't see how See also should escape one of our pillars. That needs to be clarified here, regardless of the outcome of this RfC. Paradoctor (talk) 15:16, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Per Nikimaria: Does "editorial judgment" override WP:V for the purpose of determining whether to keep links in See also sections challenged on the grounds of relevance?

Hi Paradoctor, if you want to start an RfC here could you please include a brief neutral question as per WP:RFCOPEN? I could infer one from your statement but it'd be better for you to make it clear. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:28, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Actually, I'm going to remove the RFC tag. This does not seem ripe for an RFC at this time. The question is probably reasonable but we don't need all and everyone to comment on the topic at this time. --Izno (talk) 16:30, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

That's not your call. If you don't wish to comment, then don't. Paradoctor (talk) 16:48, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Actually it is (and any one's) per WP:RFCBEFORE. Only questions which have have had previous multiple content dispute mechanisms tried, and consensus failed to be obtained, should resort to using an RFC. To boot, this is a relatively benign question. I'll remove it once more, but if you feel you must resort to an RFC on the matter, feel free to restore it. --Izno (talk) 18:03, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Instead of asking for a "citation" consider asking for an "explanation." As Layout#"See_also"_section says: "Editors should provide a brief annotation when a link's relevance is not immediately apparent ..." That helps all readers, not just the person who asks for a citation on a talk page. (And nothing stops you from "improving rather than reverting" and adding your own explanation to clarify a See also entry.) Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:39, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Oh, an explanation exists. I disagree with it, because it is speculation not supported by the literature. This RfC is about links that have been challenged, about the standard for evidence that they are, in fact, relevant. Paradoctor (talk) 16:48, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Apparently this is a content dispute. Its specificity is to be related to the see also section. So this should be discussed in the talk page of one of the article, with notification to the talk page of the other articles, and to the relevant project(s). In case of a lack of consensus, the usual dispute resolution methods must be used. The manual of style cannot predict and avoid all content disputes. D.Lazard (talk) 17:35, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

"Very long" sections

The MOS says that "Very short or very long sections and subsections in an article look cluttered and inhibit the flow of the prose. Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading." But is there an agreed definition of "very long"? Reviewing this article for A-class, I highlighted some sections that seemed to be "very long" (eg #Bolero—nine paragraphs) because they were over one screen length for me despite using small font, and likely to be several screens for mobile users. Is that a correct assessment of what is considered "very long"? Thanks! buidhe 06:45, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

It's subjective, so no firm rule would be valid. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:35, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Advice that needs changing

The page currently gives, as the last item (#9) in "Before the lead section", "Navigational boxes (header navboxes)". This is bad advice, more often wrong than right. It should either be removed completely (probably best) or considerably softened. For some years, these navboxes have proliferated hugely, as unfortunately we now have far too many editors who prefer writing these to actual sentences of text. Frankly, in a high proportion of articles they should just be removed, and an appropriate horizontal navbox used instead, where there is one. They should only be at the top of an article if there is no infobox or suitable lead image. In visual arts articles, my usual area, this is literally never the case. Yet drive-by fiddlers take the mention on this page, which I accept is cautiously worded, as justification to impose navboxes right at the top of the page, citing this policy as though it was a MOS obligation to have one. Johnbod (talk) 15:02, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Please point to an edit that you would like to have prevented, or which you did not like. --Izno (talk) 17:58, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Sure, this one - he is a persistent offender, always citing the policy. Or this one, from another. Johnbod (talk) 02:59, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. in 80-90% of cases these boxes are just unnecessary clutter that adds nothing to the article, however, in a small number of cases they can be useful. buidhe 05:29, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

In those specific cases, it seems those navboxes should be outright deleted per WP:NAVBOX: There should be a Misplaced Pages article on the subject of the template.—Bagumba (talk) 08:41, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't actually seek to have the templates deleted, I just want this page giving the impression to careless tinkering editors that the MOS says they NEED to be at the top of the article. In this case - Template:History of Dutch and Flemish painting - Art of the Low Countries is the "main article" covering the same subject. This template isn't used on that many pages, and having removed it from the top of some (putting it near the bottom), I have left it near the top of others, especially where it occupies a central space opposite the TOC, so does not reduce the more important images. Johnbod (talk) 16:20, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Can we say something at WP:Layout#Navigation_templates about when to use header navboxes as opposed to footer navboxes? If so, what? Maybe "Avoid using header navboxes when there is a suitable infobox or lead image"?Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 18:19, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

That would certainly be an improvement, though I'd also like to see changes in the list at the top. In the list, pretty much all the other items (1-8) should be at the top, where they exist. Navboxes are very different. The list:

"....the elements (such as sections and templates) that are used typically appear in the following order, although they would not all appear in the same article at the same time:

1. Before the lead section
   1. Short description
   2. Hatnotes
   3. Deletion / protection tags (CSD, PROD, AFD, PP notices)
   4. Maintenance / dispute tags
   5. English variety and date style
   6. Infoboxes
   7. Foreign character warning boxes
   8. Images
   9. Navigation templates (header navboxes)"

1. Discussed in 2018 and 2019.
2. Misplaced Pages:Hatnote § Placement.
3. These templates can also be placed at the end of an article. The matter was discussed in 2012, 2015 and 2014.

- Note that at the moment there isn't even a footnote as there is for Engvar & date format templates "These templates can also be placed at the end of an article". Generally, if smaller navboxes are needed at all, there may be many places in the article where they are best placed - for example in a section with no images. Maybe we should just add "(optional)" in the list, and "Avoid using header navboxes when there is a suitable infobox or lead image" to the section below, as suggested above. Is there approval for that? Johnbod (talk) 21:03, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Johnbod, I don't think that navboxes necessarily have to be avoided in every case where there is a sufficient lead image, see genocide for an article that currently has a navbox and a lead image below. I would support "Avoid using header navboxes when there is a suitable infobox or a lead image that is the subject of the article". (t · c) buidhe 22:15, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

" a lead image that is the subject of the article" won't I think mean any changes in practice - "shows" the subject of the article, would be better, though likely lead to rows - how do you show genocide? Even persistent fiddlers would rarely I think put a navbox template above an image of the person in a biography. Most of the examples I see are subjects where the article subject is just an item in the navbox, not the same subject. Even so, I would have put the strong, horizontal pic at the top, leaving the navbox visible below. Johnbod (talk) 23:25, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Agree with above..... need to distinguish the difference between an infobox vs a navigational box. Nav aids definitely should be the last thing in the lead if there at all. We have a big problem as of late of editors trying to redirect readers to other pages before they've even seen the contents of the page they are on... this can be seen in the spaming of navigational templates, hat notes and banner templates.--Moxy 🍁 22:45, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Indeed - the genocide area does seem full of these. As well as Template:Genocide, there is Template:Genocide of Indigenous peoples, Template:Denial of Mass Killings, Template:Discrimination sidebar, and so on. Many of the articles coming off Template:Genocide have two of these in succession at the top. Johnbod (talk) 23:32, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Fortunately for the majority of reader's (60%+ mobile viewers) just see the lead image and not the look away from this article box.--Moxy 🍁 23:40, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree that two is overkill but I think one sidebar can be helpful especially on the main article. (t · c) buidhe 23:48, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

...or not see also...

Todays featured article is about a vaudeville performer of the 19th/20th centuries, Harry Relph. Of the links in the text appearing on the main page, 5 of them are links to featured articles.

The combined see also sections of those five articles amount to a list of five items. The reason for that trend seems to come back to the instructions on this page, which suggest a comprehensive article does not include a see also section, and avoiding any repeated use of links already used in the article.

• A see also section is not an indication of an articles quality, comprehensive, good, bad, indifferent. It is a navigation tool, only. Nothing else should be of concern regarding a see also section except its value as a navigation tool.

• A see also section is not a guide to unused links in an article. It is a navigation tool for a reader. No it should not simply repeat all of the links in an article, nor should it be dismissed in favour of forcing the reader to navigate by searching through the legnthy text of a branching topic.

• Navigation tools are a basic element of the wider encyclopaedia, not just Misplaced Pages, but a key feature of pride in encyclopaedias of yesterday such as Britannica, whose navigation indexes were renowned and covered whole volumes of the encyclopaedia itself. The reason Misplaced Pages put Britannica out of business was because Misplaced Pages is supposed to be a better encyclopaedia.

Please reword this guideline so that it is supportive of see also sections, which are a fundamental and characterising aspect of this encyclopaedia. ~ R.T.G 10:27, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

We have navigation templates specifically intended for use as navigation tools. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:49, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Except they're not visible on mobile, which is what half the readers use.—Bagumba (talk) 11:55, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

So seek to change that, rather than doubling the feature for the other half. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:02, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Navigation templates are rarely specific to a particular article. And regarding fixing templates for mobile devices... that's been in the request system for years. As far as I recall it is an issue with the software on the end of the mobile devices themselves. ~ R.T.G 14:49, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

No, it was a deliberate design decision to reduce the HTML sent from the servers to your mobile device, which are most-usually in a low-bandwidth or low-data or both situation compared to your desktop computer. This, combined with the fact that the design of a navbox on mobile is a remaining design issue for wikis to figure out. They do not look good on the resolutions available to the average mobile device. --Izno (talk) 15:07, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

And navboxes are not visible to non-mobile casual wiki-users who do not know to hit the "end" key to find the buried navboxes. They're also not as far ranging as a See also section can be. I support the proposed change. Or, alternatively, permit a statement in See also that says something along the lines of "more related links at the bottom of this page." Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:18, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose any change. "See also"s tend to spiral out of control - Butwhatdoiknow's talk of "far ranging" is alarming. Templates & navboxes are also far too common - cruft that some people like to add everywhere, cluttering up pages. The category scheme is generally all the reader needs. Johnbod (talk) 16:27, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I think we can trust our editors to keep things from spiraling out of control. Then again, I can see how someone who starts at category listings being generally sufficient can quickly become alarmed at the thought of anything in a See also section. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 05:43, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

He, ha, really? The point, as reflected in the prejudice at FAC, is that if anything is really worth "also seeing" it would be mentioned and explained in the main article. In practice, over 50% of the links in SA sections one is cleaning up are already mentioned and linked in the text, and are removed for that reason. Johnbod (talk) 14:25, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Precisely! Due to your efforts (and those of other editors) See also sections do not spiral out of control. Thank you for your service. While throwing the baby (useful See also links) out with the bathwater (inappropriate links) makes your job easier, I suggest it does not make Misplaced Pages a better resource for users. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:44, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Please don't add insult to injury. Obviously, with 6 million articles, I only edit a minute fraction - much better to argue here for a general effect. Very few SA links are actually useful, but if I think they are I leave them, or better yet, integrate them in the article. Johnbod (talk) 18:17, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Well I interject here. All see also links are useful... or else they are not relevant to a see also section. As for "widely ranging", well I too support the idea that see also should not be wild, but that much is a simple matter. ~ R.T.G 20:32, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

(E/C) @Butwhatdoiknow, I recognize you're proceeding here in good faith, yet I don't accept your reasoning. Consider the following statement.... Due to the clean-up efforts of public highway departments and organizations like Keep America Beautiful we can repeal the anti-littering laws. That sounds sort of silly, no? To elaborate, take a random article's SeeAlso and subject it to FAR. As noted, a bunch (maybe 50%) of the links are redundant with the main text and can go away. Call those Group-A. Another bunch (let's just say 30%) are probably important ideas that would be included in a top-level summary article and so the main text needs work to pass FAR, and these links can be added to the main text with those edits. Call those Group-B. That leaves just a few that were not important enough for the main text (Group-C). Group-C is probably referenced in indexes and categories and sub-articles but doesn't make the cut for the main body. So you want to rely on users like Johnbod to clean up the litter as these things bloat up, all to include links from Group-C (which are not important enough for the main text). In my view, there is very little bang for buck here, and I'd rather just enforce existing no-littering laws so Johnbod and others can focus on other work. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:23, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I managed to get past the superfluous and condescending "I recognize you're proceeding here in good faith ..." Compare with all due respect. But I gave up and stopped reading when you drew the false equivalency between See also entries and litter. Or, perhaps, it is not a false equivalency for you because you think we shouldn't have See also sections at all. If that is the case then I don't accept your premise. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 23:12, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

If you extend me the same courtesy of assuming good faith, please read my entire comment and try to understand what I'm saying. I was afraid the analogy might sting, but that really-truly is how I see it, and if I could lessen the sting I would. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:50, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

No, really, you have got to stop with the introductory put downs, This time you as much as say that I am not assuming good faith on your part. Turning to the substance of your reply, let me set your mind at ease: your analogy didn't sting, Why? because I don't understand it. Please help me see why you really truly believe that See also entries (which can be good or bad) are the equivalent of litter (which is always bad). Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 06:02, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

The requested explanation can be found in the second half, that you previously said you didn't read. Further behavioral commentary is better addressed at my user talk page. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:31, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Regarding "behavioral commentary," I accept your apology. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:22, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I've looked. I don't find that the rest of your post supports the "See also entries are litter" analogy.

Group A is "important ideas" - not litter (i.e., trash).

Group B is "not important enough for the main text" - also not litter? It's hard to tell what you have in mind to do with those, leave them in See also? Put them somewhere else? Delete them because we shouldn't have See also sections?

Group C is "referenced in indexes and categories and sub-articles" - also not litter. Assuming that indexes and categories are at all useful to the casual user (a proposition with which I disagree), the current See also text is too often used by those who remove links from See also without bothering to check whether they appear in categories or indices.

Surprisingly, you don't mention Group D, true litter. That is what I have in mind for Johnbod and others to police (and "others" includes me - it is part of every editor's job "to keep things from spiraling out of control").

But here's the real problem (again, assuming the dubious proposition that hiding things in indices and categories is an adequate substitute for putting them in See also): too many editors remove Group B and C items without taking the time to put them somewhere else. When that happens Misplaced Pages becomes less useful to its readers. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:22, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I could have been more clear I suppose. Group A belongs in the main text; when they needlessly reappear to clutter up the SeeAlso the redundancies are litter. Same with Group B after they are added to the article via additions to the main text. That leaves GroupC, items not important enough for the main text. If they're really relevant to the article tree, they will be linked in subarticles. So one on hand we have dubious value of including these in a See Also section for a full and complete Feature level article. On the other hand, its not fair or reasonable to rely on cleanup editors to maintain a lean mean SeeAlso with a few nonredundant links from Group C. Since there is so much opposition and we don't communicate easily I'm going to disengage until consensus on the main question requires I respond again. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:53, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I think this discussion has run aground. The change is clearly not going to happen. Johnbod (talk) 21:12, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

User:NAEG says they want to prevent clutter of a see also section. They also say they want to prevent see also section entirely. The idea that a see also section is certain to be wild and unmanageable is pure fantasy. We already have see also across the whole site. There is no such issue. What is up for debate here is the growing trend towards removing them entirely, based on fanciful arguments such as these. If see also sections were going to be a problem... they'd already be a problem. There is no proposal for something new and experimental in this request. It is about protecting something old and intrinsic, which is being accused without basis of creating unmanageable problems. ~ R.T.G 22:20, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

They are a problem, if not a fatal one (fortunately being at the bottom of articles, which few readers ever actually reach in non-stub ones). They always have been. There is indeed something "new" in this proposal - adjusting the MOS: "Please reword this guideline so that it is supportive of see also sections". This has been opposed by several editors, but no one has suggested changed MOS to be less supportive than it is now. Johnbod (talk) 00:22, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

@Johnbod: when Butwhatdoiknow talks about a farther range in see also, they could alternatively have said that navboxes are generally sibling groups only, rarely focused to a specific article, such that they can provide similar and related items specific to that particular article. What you are fearing, the opening of a floodgate, ruins that almost as much as having no see also at all. Neither should see also be depreciated, or should they be wild and unmanageable, no way. Do you know who is the best in this whole wide world at doing see also? Experts and lecturers. The value of see also has nothing directly to do with cruft at all. How about a change to the wording of the request:- "Please reword this guideline to be more supportive of see also sections, (with care not to invite lists of cruft or anything like that, only including strikingly similar and obviously related items with a view to being a short listing of enlightening tangential topics, striking and enlightening, not simply a list of sibling articles, which is what navboxes are for)" Can you do anything better than support letting the feature die, please? ~ R.T.G 08:36, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Unclear alternative it all sounds a big vague. I would need to see some draft text, ideally via a test diff showing changes, in order to form an opinion. To me, it seems like the primary agreement-in-principle you seek is ending FAR editors' current practice of getting rid of See Alsos for featured articles. If my perception is correct and you choose to offer draft text for the MOS, please make the impact on FAR explicit in the draft so everyone understands the substantive change(s) being made. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:32, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Some test edits, the worst possible thing to do in the middle of a discussion. The substantive change being made is clear, the depreciation of see also, referencing a guide which clearly stated no intention for changed policy. ~ R.T.G 13:28, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

"FAR editors' current practice of getting rid of See Alsos for featured articles" DING, DING, DING -we have a winner!! Now I understand why there is so much resistance to RTG's proposal: it would make it more difficult for the FAR "I hate See alsos" clique to ignore MOS:seealso policy - which does not call for getting rid of See alsos - and follow their own made-up rule. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:56, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose as Johnbod says, too much "see also" is a much bigger issue than too little. We should focus on reducing these sections, not expanding them. (t · c) buidhe 16:36, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
• I don't see the point of this request. MOS:ALSO neither requires see also sections, nor does it disallow them. The matter should be decided on a case-by-case basis. Calidum 16:36, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

• @Calidum:The current wording can be construed to favour both, that a quality article does not have a see also section, and that links used in the article prose should not be repeated in a see also section at all. From the archives it seems that this is complained about regularly. The issue seems to have originated here, where it was complained about, and has been complained about in each talkpage archive since. The wording was changed here in 2011, specifically stipulating the intention of the edit was simply concision. If you are familiar with WP:FA and GA, they are sort of fanatical about following any and all implications in the MOS, which makes sense because they don't have time to argue there. They simply follow the guide. The see also section has gradually suffered, never so apparently as with this whole set of FAs on the main page today, which almost totally lack such a section. See also is an important navigation tool which navboxes and categories simply are not focused toward completely replacing. ~ R.T.G 18:07, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

• Opposed Just days ago the OP argued the same points in the thread Talk:Global warming#Gulf Stream and general thermohaline shutdown. Although the opening post uses a different article to illustrate RTG's desired changes, and although no notice about this proposal was provided at Talk:Global warming, RTG's desired change to the MOS is precisely what the Talk:Global warming argument is all about. I oppose for reasons stated in the earlier thread, and concur with others here. Also, I appreciate RTG's research into the origins of this guideline. Apparently it has stood for nine years, despite many complaints. If it were badly broken, the community probably would have supported reform by now. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:26, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

• As they have not expressed an opinion here, I will try to keep it real by quoting User:NewsAndEventsGuy from the thread they linked, an article being prepared for featured article review:- "Per the WP:MOS we don't list items in "see also" that were linked in the article body." ~ R.T.G 06:57, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

True in addition I also opined on the merits. There's no need to copy paste that whole discussion here, interested parties can follow the link to the earlier thread. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:24, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

• "See also" sections are problematic as they require no sourcing to explain the connection, and can be used to suggest connections which may or may not be appropriate: see this diff in a spat over the section for a controversial BLP medium, where some editors wanted to list every other fake medium. PamD 07:08, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

  PamD, a source wouldn't stop undue links. However, WP:SEEALSO already states that inclusion is "a matter of editorial judgment and common sense."—Bagumba (talk) 07:57, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

  @PamD: is correct. This is probably the most problematic aspect of having see also sections. So PamD, you support depreciating see also, as an indicator of poor quality in an article, or should the guide be worded so that it cannot be construed as purposely saying that? Note: It does not purposely say that at this time. ~ R.T.G 22:30, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

We have nav templates omitted from mobile view because of pop-culture articles that are just honorably spammed with templates..like Meryl Streep#External links. Would need to change the horrible rule at WP:BIDIRECTIONAL that causes spam of this nature all over pop culture articles, as anyone can make a crap nav template and spam it all over. Before a change would happen with mobile view output we would need to cleanup lots and lots of template spamming with mass deletion from articles.--Moxy 🍁 23:51, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose, I routinely come across relatively short non-FAR articles where the See also section is a pointless reiteration of links in the article (usually quite prominent in the lead and often repeated a few times in the article body. If some narrowly focused update is needed to avoid the perception that removal of See also is mandatory for FAR, that is another matter that I care little about. older ≠ wiser 15:42, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

  @Bkonrad: the request specifically supports your view. It says, " should not simply repeat all of the links in an article". ~ R.T.G 19:23, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

  The request, such as it is then, is hopelessly unclear as to what change is actually wanted. older ≠ wiser 20:10, 24 July 2020 (UTC)