Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Layout: Difference between revisions

< Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 17:58, 31 July 2020 editRTG (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users9,390 edits →...or not see also...← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 12:35, 19 January 2025 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk \| contribs)Bots, Template editors2,311,114 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Layout/Archive 15) (bot
(533 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{talk header\|shortcut=WT:MOSLAYOUT}}		{{talk header\|shortcut=WT:MOSLAYOUT}}
	{{notice\|header=Format of appendices\|Before proposing a change to the standard appendices, please study {{section link\|Misplaced Pages:Perennial proposals\|Changes to standard appendices}}.}}		{{notice\|header=Format of appendices\|Before proposing a change to the standard appendices, please study {{section link\|Misplaced Pages:Perennial proposals\|Changes to standard appendices}}.}}
			{{WikiProject banner shell\|
	{{WPMOS}}
			{{WikiProject Manual of Style}}
			}}

	{{User:MiszaBot/config		{{User:MiszaBot/config
	\|maxarchivesize = 150K		\|maxarchivesize = 150K
	\|counter = 13		\|counter = 15
	\|algo = old(~~90d~~)		\|algo = old(150d)
	\|archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Layout/Archive %(counter)d		\|archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Layout/Archive %(counter)d
	}}		}}
	{{auto archiving notice\|bot=lowercase sigmabot III\|age=90\|small=yes}}

	== ] in regards to ], ], and similar templates ==

	So ... I'm looking at ]'s target, and it says ''nothing'' about where templates such as {{Tl\|Featured article}} and {{Tl\|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? ] (]) 19:06, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
	:{{u\|Steel1943}}, please see the sublist under item 4 "End matter": {{tq\|5. {{tl\|Featured list}}, {{tl\|Featured article}} and {{tl\|Good article}} (where appropriate for article status)}}. Also, there is a related ongoing discussion (albeit it slowed down) at ]. —⁠] (]) 19:45, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
	:*Yay, I can't see stuff. Disregard my silliness. ] (]) 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 ] and ]). 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 ], edits, while the latter should be easier to program and would result in greater consistency in what appears in the editing interface. Thoughts? – ] 23:28, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
	:I am for this! <span style="color:#CD0000">comrade ] (])</span> 12:05, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
	:{{ping\|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 ] is stated as follows in ]: {{tq\|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. — ] (]) 09:07, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
	::Do screen readers read maintenance templates? If not, ] ought to be observed. -- ] (]) 10:53, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
	:::Why wouldn't they? Just in case, I've just tested with on ], and yes, it does read out the {{tl\|refimprove}} template; and because of all the links in there, it takes a very long time doing so. – ] 15:49, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
	::::I meant those that you mentioned earlier: engvar, protection, and use-date-format, citevar. -- ] (]) 01:50, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

	== RfC Verifiability in See also sections ==

	I have encountered ] that adding a link {{tquote\|doesn't require a citation}}, even when ]d. (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 ]'s criterion of "editorial judgment and common sense" is among the {{tquote\|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 ], 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. ] (]) 15:16, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

	<ins>Per Nikimaria: '''Does "editorial judgment" override ] for the purpose of determining whether to keep links in See also sections challenged on the grounds of relevance?'''</ins>

			== Single-sentence paragraphs ==
	:Hi ], if you want to start an RfC here could you please include a brief neutral question as per ]? I could infer one from your statement but it'd be better for you to make it clear. ] (]) 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. --] (]) 16:30, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
	::: That's not your call. If you don't wish to comment, then don't. ] (]) 16:48, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
	::::Actually it is (and any one's) per ]. 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. --] (]) 18:03, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

			Re:
	: Instead of asking for a "citation" consider asking for an "explanation." As ] 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.) ] (]) 16:39, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
	:: Oh, an explanation exists. I disagree with it, because it is ] 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. ] (]) 16:48, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

			I suspect that most of MoS lacks such precise definition and requires judgment calls. Effectively in practice, the current guideline says, "Single-sentence paragraphs bad", and I witnessed it being interpreted/applied exactly that way just today. It wasn't the first time. That's a problem that needs addressing (there can't be a CREEP objection to re-wording a sentence), and I'm open to alternative suggestions. ―] ] 05:25, 31 August 2024 (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. ] (]) 17:35, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

			:Perhaps delete the entire wishy-washy sentence? Or, if it is important to say, move it to ]? It doesn't really seem to be a layout issue. - ] (]) 15:44, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
	== "Very long" sections ==
			:I think "The number of single-sentence paragraphs should be minimized" is sane advice and don't see any good reason to change it. It doesn't say that such paragraphs are forbidden, but just that they should usually be avoided, which is a good rule of thumb and in agreement with my own editing experience. ] (]) 16:00, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
			::I think Mandruss is trying to solve the problem of editors reading "should be minimized" as "should be zero." Why not just remove the whole sentence*? ''See'' ].
			:::<nowiki>*</nowiki> To clarify, the "whole sentence" I'm proposing to remove is the one in this article that is causing the problem: ''The number of single-sentence paragraphs should be minimized, since they can inhibit the flow of the text; by the same token, paragraphs that exceed a certain length become hard to read.''
			::- ] (]) 18:47, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
			:::If everything that can be misread is removed from the MOS, the MOS will be empty. Why not just point people who have misread something to the actual wording so they can read it again? ] (]) 18:52, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
			::::They didn't misread it the first time. The problem is disagreement about whether the case in question is part of the "minimum". The guideline provides no answer, no help with that. A guideline that effectively says "Use your own judgment" is not a guideline and should be modified or eliminated per CREEP. ―] ] 20:41, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
			:::::Some degree of judgement is always necessary, but that rule is still good advice. ] (]) 22:11, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
			::::::Which rule? ―] ] 22:13, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
			::::If everything that is good advice is placed in MOS, the MOS will be infinitely long. - ] (]) 00:22, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
			:::::That, however, is not an argument for taking stuff out that's already in (and wasn't added just recently). ] (]) 06:25, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
			::::::Right, it's no better argument than "If everything that can be misread is removed from the MOS, the MOS will be empty."
			::::::The argument for taking the sentence out is that is is not a "rule" but is being taken as one by some editors. ''See'' ].
			::::::What - besides "it's been there for ages" - is the argument for keeping it in this guideline (rather than removing it or moving it to an essay)? - ] (]) 15:35, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
			*For whatever it’s worth, the essay ] says: “One-sentence paragraphs are unusually emphatic, and should be used sparingly.”] (]) 06:35, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

			== External links followup ==
	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 ] for ], 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! <span style="background:Black;padding:1px 5px">]]]</span> 06:45, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
	:It's subjective, so no firm rule would be valid. --] 🌹 (]) 09:35, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

			Greetings and felicitations. Per the discussion I just started on ], it seems that we forgot to update or involve ] or ]—or ] for that matter. :-/ —] (]) 19:42, 7 September 2024 (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. ] (]) 15:02, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
	:Please point to an edit that you would like to have prevented, or which you did not like. --] (]) 17:58, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
	::Sure, - he is a persistent offender, always citing the policy. Or , from another. ] (]) 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. <span style="background:Black;padding:1px 5px">]]]</span> 05:29, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
	:::In those specific cases, it seems those navboxes should be outright deleted per ]: {{tq\|There should be a Misplaced Pages article on the subject of the template.\|q=yes}}—] (]) 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 - ] - ] 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. ] (]) 16:20, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
	:Can we say something at ] 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"?] (]) 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 {{em\|all}} appear in the same article at the same time:
	# Before the lead section
	## ]<ref>Discussed in ] and ].</ref>
	## ]<ref>{{slink\|Misplaced Pages:Hatnote\|Placement}}.</ref>
	## Deletion / protection tags (], ], ], ] notices)
	## ] / ] tags
	## ] and ]<ref>These templates can also be placed at the end of an article. The matter was discussed in ], ] and ].</ref>
	## ]
	## ]
	## ]
	## ] (header navboxes)"
	{{Reflist}}
	- 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? ] (]) 21:03, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
	:{{u\|Johnbod}}, I don't think that navboxes necessarily have to be avoided in every case where there is a sufficient lead image, see ] 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". (] · ]) ''']''' 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. ] (]) 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.--<span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">]</span> <span style="color:red">🍁</span> 22:45, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
	::Indeed - the ] area does seem full of these. As well as ], there is ], ], ], and so on. Many of the articles coming off ] have two of these in succession at the top. ] (]) 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.--<span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">]</span> <span style="color:red">🍁</span> 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. (] · ]) ''']''' 23:48, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

			== Interpretation of guideline concerning links to sister projects ==
	== ...or not see also... ==

			The ] guideline states (just slightly paraphrased) {{tq\|The "See also" section should not include red links or external links (including links to pages within Wikimedia sister projects.}} This seemed to me to apply but I was reverted . Could we get a second opinion on whether these de.wiki links, which are redlinks on en.wiki, are appropriate or inappropriate? ☆ <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family: Papyrus">]</span> (]) 15:36, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
	Todays featured article is about a vaudeville performer of the 19th/20th centuries, ]. Of the links in the text appearing on the main page, 5 of them are links to featured articles.
			: This would come down to three questions:
			:* Are {{tl\|illm}} links counted as wikilinks (IMHO, yes) or as 'links to sister projects', i.e. the {{tl\|commons-inline}} form?
			:* Are redlinks excluded from See Also ? Our basic policy says yes. However we have previously followed a practice where obvious sets, such as geographical sets (the case here) have been kept even though red.
			:* Is an {{tl\|illm}} local redlink with a valid link to de:WP (and for an article that is essentially German) treated as a pure redlink to the same extent, re. purging them like this? ] (]) 17:30, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
			:*There was a long and inconclusive discussion of {{tl\|ill}} links at ], which may be relevant.
			:]] 20:04, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
			::I'd say the guideline is clear and interpret it as it's written, which means ''not'' to include links to sister projects (including Wikipedias in other languages) nor red links, as those won't benefit our average reader. (Red links might benefit editors and links to the German Misplaced Pages might benefit readers fluent in German, but I'd argue that neither can be considered as "average".) ] (]) 06:37, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
			::: And yet if these weren't links at all, we might still include them (although not in this section) as a ''list'' of the related local equivalent sites. That, IMHO, is what tips these over. And even as someone with very poor German, I can follow a link and read a map (again, a useful action for this case). ] (]) 10:25, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
			::::Well, whether they belong into the "External links" section is a separate issue, to be discussed separately if somebody thinks so. But that doesn't magically change what's admissible for the "See also" section, which has its own clear rules. ] (]) 13:25, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
			::::: There is no way (nor has anyone suggested it) that they would belong under 'External links'
			::::: Even clear sister project links don't belong there. (They are floated CSS boxes, which are coded within the ''last'' section on the page. Although this is often 'External links', that's not where they're related to.) ] (]) 22:44, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

			==External links section==
	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.
			It is just an observation but the ] reads {{tq\|An optional bulleted list, usually alphabetized...}} and {{tq\|Any links to external websites included under "Further reading" are subject to the guidelines described at ].}},

			The "External links" section is also ''an optional bulleted list'' but it does not state this. It does state "Depending on the nature of the link contents, this section '''may be accompanied or replaced by a "Further reading" section'''." I added the bold. The ] does contain: "Misplaced Pages articles may include external links".
	*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.

			It would seem to be less confusing to add "An optional bulleted list" because the section is "optional". -- ] (]) 15:14, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
	*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''.
			:Almost every section discussed in Layout is optional. Perhaps a better solution would be to remove "optional" from Further reading. - ] (]) 15:39, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
			::Makes sense. ] (]) 07:37, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

			== See also section status ==
	*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.

			My experience and general observation is that see also sections are slowly being trimmed back and deprecated during the article development process. This is because most of the time, as an article progresses from a stub, entries in the see also section can often be incorporated into the article and eliminated. However, at least one editor feels differently, and is keeping the spirit of the early 2000s alive. ("It's the <s>90s</s> 2000s, Colin!") Instead of using the see also section for articles that can be incorporated into the article during the expansion process, they are using the see also section purely as a navigational tool. In this instance, they are using the see also section in a wide variety of articles to point to "list of x" articles that are generally related to the biographical subject, such as a list of their paintings or books, etc. In most cases, this usage duplicates links in the footer template. The user has several justifications as to why we should use the see also section as a navigational tool instead of the footer template, often having to do with limitations on mobile users and the uptick in article hits (or so it is claimed) when the see also navigational link is used. I don't have any strong feelings on this, but I think adding see also sections as a navigational tool is slightly unusual and isn't spelled out or explained anywhere in the MOS, and is also, in many cases, duplicating the link in the footer template. More input would be appreciated. {{ping\|Randy Kryn}} courtesy ping. ] (]) 21:13, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
	Please reword this guideline so that it is supportive of see also sections, which are a fundamental and characterising aspect of this encyclopaedia. <span style="color: #8a87a6; font-size: 11px; font-family: Impact">~ ].].]</span> 10:27, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

			:Any examples. I see that there have been a few talk about dropping footer.templates all together since only about 20% of our readers have access to them. <span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">]</span>🍁 21:59, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
	:We have ] specifically intended for use as navigation tools. ] (]) 11:49, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
	::Except they're not visible on mobile, which is what half the readers use.—] (]) 11:55, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
	:::So seek to change that, rather than doubling the feature for the other half. ] (]) 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. <span style="color: #8a87a6; font-size: 11px; font-family: Impact">~ ].].]</span> 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. --] (]) 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." ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. <span style="color: #8a87a6; font-size: 11px; font-family: Impact">~ ].].]</span> 20:32, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

			::It might be easier to just look at Randy's . He's committed to this like peanut butter on jelly. However, if you just want to look at one article instead of a bunch, you can take a look at '']'', where the see also duplicates the same link in the footer (which I've now collapsed). I guess I'm just not familiar with Randy's position that the see also should be used for navigation, and that's not something I've seen in the MOS, although I could be missing it. My objection to footer templates is that they look terrible, so I wouldn't be sad to see them go. If there was a way to make them look professional, then I would be in favor of keeping them. ] (]) 22:09, 22 October 2024 (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 ] 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 {{u\|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. ] (]) 18:23, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
			:::I see the link at ] as a good addition as the footer is not see by the vast majority of our readers. This reminds me of what we do for country articles linking an index or an outline of the topic.... that is links that lead to a vast amount of information about the topic. <span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">]</span>🍁 22:15, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
	:::::: I managed to get past the superfluous and condescending "I recognize you're proceeding here in good faith ..." ''Compare'' . 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. ] (]) 23:12, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
			::::Great, could I see an example of such a country article link? I'm not familiar with it. ] (]) 22:16, 22 October 2024 (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. ] (]) 00:50, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
			:::::] as outlined at the essay ] "See also – 'See also" sections of country articles normally only contain links to "Index of country" and "Outline of country" articles, alongside the main portal(s).". <span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">]</span>🍁 22:22, 22 October 2024 (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). ] (]) 06:02, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
			::::::That's great, because it limits and restricts the type of entries at the project/country level. I'm not sure that applies or is relevant to biographies, works of art, literature, etc., but I could see how one could loosely apply it. I don't see anything at ] or any the other relevant projects, however. ] (]) 22:33, 22 October 2024 (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. ] (]) 11:31, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
			:::::::It's something they should develop...... or at the very least develop some sort of anti-template spam that is seen at ]....that is one of the many examples used to justify why nav footers aren't visible in mobile view..... all related to '''masslink spam''' to loosely related articles and ]. ] is one of the worst ideas the MOS has and is simply ignored by those working on academic topics that are concerned about accessibility and structure of an article. WP:BIDIRECTIONAL results in mass template span that really only affects pop culture and biography articles and if one of the main reasons footers aren't seen in mobile view.<span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">]</span>🍁 22:43, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
	:::::::: Regarding "behavioral commentary," I accept your apology. ] (]) 16:22, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
			::::::::Thank you for the education. I'm more confused than before I started this thread, but over time I've come to learn that's a sign of progress. ] (]) 22:51, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
	:::::: Okay, I've looked. I don't find that the rest of your post supports the "See also entries are litter" analogy.
			::::{{ping\|Moxy}} I’ve been thinking about this, and I don’t really see how the link is all that helpful in see also sections about individual paintings. Yes, it should definitely appear in a top-level article about the artist, but in an article about an individual painting I don’t find it helpful or informative. There is virtually no useful content, such as info about his different periods and styles, and the accuracy of the information is probably in doubt. If it was a verified list with relevant material I wouldn’t have a problem with it, but it’s not. We just have one editor spamming the list to every article about Renoir, and I don’t like that. How does the link help the reader of the article? I don’t find it helpful, so I don’t see how anyone else does. I also don’t think it’s the job of the article to facilitate navigation, but rather understanding. For this reason, I would prefer to remove the see also section and merge the link into the article itself. ] (]) 04:16, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
	:::::: Group A is "important ideas" - not litter (''i.e.'', trash).
			:I think having the most important related articles in the "See also" section (provided they weren't already mentioned in the article text) is a good thing, since we should not forget that mobile readers (which are clearly the majority, as far as I know) won't see footer templates at all, so having the "See also" section as a kind of mini-footer template will certainly help them. It's indeed no longer the 2000s, and we should try to think "mobile first" now. ]. (]) 07:16, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
	:::::: 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?
			::Yeah, I’m a bit confused by that, honestly. 90% of all cell phones are smartphones, and many people browse in desktop mode. So where is this whole mobile users aren’t seeing footer templates thing coming from? I assume you are talking about people using the app? ] (]) 07:53, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
	:::::: 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.
			:::I see now that you are referring to https://en.m.wikipedia.org, specifically. ] (]) 08:26, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
	:::::: 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").
			:::Navboxes are coded to prevent their display on the Mobile Web site. This is because the layout is horrendous when the screen is 2.5 inches wide.
	:::::: 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. ] (]) 16:22, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
			:::You can approximate the problem if you visit a page like ] and make your browser window as narrow as possible. The more 'nested' the template, the worse the problem. See ] for an example of that. Navboxes were designed as wide tables, and those just don't fit into the smartphone format. ] (]) 08:30, 23 October 2024 (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. ] (]) 19:53, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
	::::~~::::::Yes,~~ I ~~think~~ ~~this~~ ~~discussion~~ ~~has~~ ~~run~~ ~~aground.~~ ~~The~~ ~~change~~ is ~~clearly~~ ~~not~~ ~~going~~ to ~~happen~~. ] (]) 21:12, 23 ~~July~~ ~~2020~~ (UTC)		::::I don't have a problem with navboxes and templates in iOS (except for playing video) but I assume other people do. ] (]) 08:51, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
			:::::Scroll to the end of https://en.m.wikipedia.org/Multidrug-resistant_bacteria on your phone. Make sure you are on the default-for-iOS mobile site, not switched to the desktop view. Do you see a navbox at the end of the page? ] (]) 18:34, 23 October 2024 (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. <span style="color: #8a87a6; font-size: 11px; font-family: Impact">~ ].].]</span> 22:20, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
			::::::Yeah, I got it. Thanks. ] (]) 18:38, 23 October 2024 (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. ] (]) 00:22, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
			:::I talk about people using browsers on mobile, not about the app. When I open Misplaced Pages on my smartphone's browser, I don't see any navboxes. It happens automatically based on one's screen size, as far as I know – which is very reasonable. Like ] said, navboxes on phone screens would be a terrible user experience, and I'm quite happy that they are automatically hidden. But of course that means that we can't rely on them for anything essential. ] (]) 17:06, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
			::::I edit and write from my phone on a daily basis, but I use desktop mode, not mobile. ] (]) 02:21, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
			*'''To put a cork in the See also concern''', to put it to bed. In February 2023, in one of my many See also runs, I distributed ] to the See also section of its entries. The result: , . That's probably the most productive run I've done in terms of views, yet there are dozens more which have upped daily views by many hundreds. I actually consider a See also run worthwhile if it adds 20 views a day, and look at that as a success (especially when considering yearly totals). ] (]) 01:35, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
			*: at 65.5% for English Misplaced Pages. <span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">]</span>🍁 01:49, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
			*::Thanks. Is See also not seen on mobile? ] (]) 01:57, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
			*:::"See also" is seen..... just linking stats for all. <span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">]</span>🍁 02:02, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
			*::::..... To see how messed up these are in mobile view..... our administrative pages allow nav templates to be seen. ]. <span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">]</span>🍁 02:04, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
			*:::I was commenting on "See also" in this section, the subject of this discussion where my name was initially dragged around. My comment on navboxes is below. ] (]) 02:32, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
			*:::::And how many people view and edit from their phone in desktop mode? ] (]) 02:23, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
			*::::Dragged, as in 1) one courtesy ping per best practices, and 2) answering a question about where examples could be found. Got it. ] (]) 02:35, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
			*:I remain skeptical. is probably responsible for most of the views, and it's the best explanation for the increase in views as it's the top parent article in the topic. ] (]) 02:32, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
			*::You're welcome. Maybe, who knows? My guess is that someone interested enough in a historical photograph to actually click on its Misplaced Pages article would jump for joy to find out there is a whole list of them. Many pages are short enough that their 'See also' section stands out and is actually used for navigation. ] (]) 02:41, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
			*:::To summarize: I agree that your single edit to the top level article ] resulted in more hits to the list. But I disagree that your "see also run" was significant. You would have to view the incoming links to verify. Do we even have access to that data? Then you could really shove it in my face. But until then... ] (]) 02:47, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
			*::::No comment (actually, too many to choose from). ] (]) 02:52, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Love me some navboxes'''. I love navboxes, and consider them one of the best features of original Misplaced Pages. ], and have edited many times more. When done well, and hopefully many of mine meet that standard, a navbox provides a comprehensive map to Misplaced Pages's collection of articles in a coherent way. Even if navboxes are now seen by only 20% of readers (respectfully, where does that number come from? Seems low to me, do only 20% of people read Misplaced Pages on lap and desktops?) that still means that many millions of people a day look at pages which contain a navbox. A feature of original Misplaced Pages, they are the cat's meow of internet topic maps. ] (]) 01:48, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
			*:I am reminded of ]s, what Misplaced Pages refers to as "a relic of the early web of the 1990s." ] (]) 02:15, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
			*::Webrings became obsolete because of improved search engines. Navboxes are in-house Misplaced Pages features, and still provide readers with a map of the website's collections. As mentioned, many millions of readers a day still have beneficial access to navboxes, even though mobile views lose several important Misplaced Pages features. I've sometimes advocated that a short message be placed on mobile where a navbox would ordinarily go, "Desktop and laptop Misplaced Pages views include important features not seen on mobile" (or some such language). ] (]) 03:00, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
			*:::Yes, the ] circa 1993. Sounds nice. I won't lie, I used to love browsing Misplaced Pages in Lynx. I won't address the can of worms known as a search engine. Thanks for the trip down memory lane. ] (]) 03:03, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

			== Placement of the "Bots" template? ==
	:: {{re\|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? <span style="color: #8a87a6; font-size: 11px; font-family: Impact">~ ].].]</span> 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. ] (]) 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. <span style="color: #8a87a6; font-size: 11px; font-family: Impact">~ ].].]</span> 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 ] policy - which does not call for getting rid of See alsos - and follow their own made-up rule. ] (]) 15:56, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

			Greetings and felicitations. Where should a "Bots" template be placed in an article? —] (]) 14:42, 6 December 2024 (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. (] · ]) ''']''' 16:36, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
	*I don't see the point of this request. ] neither requires see also sections, nor does it disallow them. The matter should be decided on a case-by-case basis. '''<span style="border: 1px #8C001A solid;background:#8C001A">]</span>''' 16:36, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
	:*{{re\|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 ], where it was complained about, and has been complained about in each talkpage archive since. The wording was changed 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. <span style="color: #8a87a6; font-size: 11px; font-family: Impact">~ ].].]</span> 18:07, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
	*'''Opposed''' Just days ago the OP argued the same points in the thread ]. Although the opening post uses a different article to illustrate RTG's desired changes, and although no notice about this proposal was provided at ], RTG's desired change to the MOS is precisely what the ] 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. ] (]) 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:- {{tq\|"Per the WP:MOS we don't list items in "see also" that were linked in the article body."}} <span style="color: #8a87a6; font-size: 11px; font-family: Impact">~ ].].]</span> 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. ] (]) 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 in a spat over the section for a controversial BLP medium, where some editors wanted to list every other fake medium. ]] 07:08, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
	*:{{u\|PamD}}, a source wouldn't stop undue links. However, ] already states that inclusion is "a matter of editorial judgment and common sense."—] (]) 07:57, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
	*::{{re\|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. <span style="color: #8a87a6; font-size: 11px; font-family: Impact">~ ].].]</span> 22:30, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

			== Use of template "further." Does it need clarification? ==
	:We have nav templates omitted from mobile view because of pop-culture articles that are just honorably spammed with templates..like ]. Would need to change the horrible rule at ] 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.--<span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">]</span> <span style="color:red">🍁</span> 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. ] ≠ ] 15:42, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
	*::{{re\|Bkonrad}} the request specifically supports your view. It says, " should not simply repeat all of the links in an article". <span style="color: #8a87a6; font-size: 11px; font-family: Impact">~ ].].]</span> 19:23, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
	*:::The request, such as it is then, is hopelessly unclear as to what change is actually wanted. ] ≠ ] 20:10, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
	*::::{{re\|Bkonrad}} the text is being increasingly taken to suggest that a "comprehensive article" does not have a see also section. Also, the text is commonly taken to suggest that ''no link ever'' should be repeated in a see also section. Let's use slightly different wordings, without condoning clutter, but without further entertaining the confusing suggestion that see also is somehow a bad thing in general... <span style="color: #8a87a6; font-size: 11px; font-family: Impact">~ ].].]</span> 20:46, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
	*:::::What ''specific change'' do you want to see made to the wording? ] (]) 21:12, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
	*::::::The part about "some comprehensive articles do not have a see also section" has been complained about perennially, and that complaint was predicted since the very time it was shortened to its current iteration. This is also with the part which says "as a general rule" links used in the article body are not used in the see also section. This is endlessly invoked as telling us that links in the article are banned from see also, just not enforced in lower quality articles. These inferences were never intended, as the history of the guide and the talk shows. These were never instructions, but they were simply intended to be a pared down wording of the original lengthier explanations, why we do not have massive see also sections, to keep them short, concise, and relevant. I'm sorry that it is difficult to reference such sections for every article, but since when do we reference a navbox or a category? We don't. We judge what should be in them in the various ways that we do, and we should have no interest in reducing such navigation devices, except where it is not short, concise, and relevant. Quality over quantity, but something over nothing. I am going to bet that nobody has ever gone to the Village Pump or anywhere like that and said let's depreciate see also. It is totally coming from this wording where it is not intended to produce that effect, and nor should it produce that effect without a significant request at the VP. What if the sky falls down all over the place, some people seem to be saying, and youse wonder why it is difficult to make sense. What if it doesn't? What if it just stays up there forever? Anyone got an answer for that one? <span style="color: #8a87a6; font-size: 11px; font-family: Impact">~ ].].]</span> 22:34, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
	*::::::: So again, as Nikkimaria just asked, <span style="color:green">What ''specific change'' do you want to see made to the wording?</span> Please don't repeat the basic complaint or vaguely opine about goals or ideas. We'd like to see specific proposed text changes. Alternatively, if you think FAR editors are misapplying the current MOS in a ] way, you can reach out to them if that has not happened, and failing to find satisfaction you can bring those concerns to the admins or arbs. ] (]) 00:31, 25 July 2020 (UTC) ] (]) 00:26, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
	*::::::::Don't keep your foot on me. You are the one being disruptive. You are specifically, above all here, being purely disruptive. Your original reply here shows that clearly. You cannot wait to abuse SNOW and template with '''total disregard''' to the value of the output, which is the only thing up for discussion here. ]. You seem to feel like you are placeholding for editors like Ser Admantio, who in fact can most often be found going around linking, categorising, and editing see alsos and other navigation features... Disruption is ''not'' classy at all. Not even nearly. The output of the site is for the reader. Any focused effort contrary to that equates sabotage, no matter how you belittle. If you want to disrupt an argument, disrupt one that is out of control. Depreciating see also is a mistake. Please take notice of ]. <span style="color: #8a87a6; font-size: 11px; font-family: Impact">~ ].].]</span> 07:36, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

			I work a lot with tennis articles and many have the <nowiki>{{main}}</nowiki> template placed above the lead. Lots and lots of them. Example ]. I was shown awhile ago that template "main" is never to be placed in the lead and it says so right in the template documentation. Several of us have been changing "main" to the template "further" to fix this disparity. Today I look at the template "see also" and it also says not to be used in the lead, only at the top of article sections. That got me to thinking why is the "further" template not clear on this placement? It says top of sections but says nothing about the article lead. Is this a mistake of not being clearer? I ask because Tennis Project is slowly fixing the "main" template to "further" and I don't want to find out later that no template at all should be in the lead. Should we be removing <nowiki>{{main}} completely, changing it to {{further}} or something else? And should the {{further}} template be made more clear as to its proper placement?</nowiki> Thanks. ] (]) 22:03, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
	* I think the verbiage of the present document is fairly reasonable. It encourages editors to integrate links into the article-proper as a matter of good context for the user. It says not to duplicate links in the article or navboxes (hence, it is see ''also''). It {{em\|notes}} that high-quality articles may not have see also sections but does not ban them entirely from such. The repeated claims it does so are accordingly false. --] (]) 00:51, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
	:*I may have made that false claim myself, but regardless... as I understand it, the core issue here is that current practice among FAR editors is tantamount to an outright ban even though the MOS doesn't make an outright ban. ] (]) 01:00, 25 July 2020 (UTC) PS I just noticed that although FAR seems to be at the crux of this complaint, no one ever invited FAR to the discussion. I'm not going to do that, even though I noticed, because right now its very long, but still lacks specifics. ] (]) 01:04, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

			:{{tlx\|Broader}}? <span style="display:inline-flex;rotate:-15deg;color:darkblue">''']'''</span><span style="display:inline-flex;rotate:15deg;color:darkblue">]</span> 02:23, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
	]
			::{{tlx\|Broader}} is also just meant for sections, I'd seems. I'd rather avoid any such template in the lead but instead integrate the information into the running text: {{xt\|During the ], ] defeated ] ...}} ] (]) 04:14, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
	*The article ] does not have a see also section. ] does not have a see also section either. ]... does. ]... has a see also section. Often when we see that an area of subjects are mostly being looked after by editors who appear to be experts, we are comforted. Oh... the experts have come home and found a place, and it is going to turn out with such high quality... except.. it gains the ''air'' of quality, but when whole areas are aloof it is a comparative. They are distant from everything else, or as they say in "the west", inaccessible. Medicine, politically charged topics, mathematics, and several other large genres... are all pared down this perception of high quality everything, but dissemination becomes a neglected topic. The best encyclopaedia can be disseminated by a child from top to bottom, and is popular ''for no reason other'' than how well it disseminates. Depreciating see also, or worse, ''allowing'' it to be depreciated, is a mistake for the wider encyclopaedia. See also should be restrained, but not smothered. Any widely branching article which does not have a see also section is out of sync with the building of an encyclopaedia, and if a range of such articles do not have see also, something is wrong here in the guidelines. See also helps disseminate. Removing see also removes that with no genuine replacement available. <span style="color: #8a87a6; font-size: 11px; font-family: Impact">~ ].].]</span> 17:57, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
			::"Broader" has the same issue as "further" does. It says section and it talks about being used as a replacement for "main" and "see also" which are already listed as not being suited for the lead. I think what we need is something in the documentation of "further" and "broader" that says this can be used in the lead, or this should not be used in the lead. So editors will know. I'm not sure where I stand which is why I brought it here to discuss. We know "main" and "see also" do not get used in the lead. What do we do with "further" and now "broader?" Allow it, not allow it, encourage it's use or disuse? ] (]) 07:09, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Is this mostly for tennis articles, or is there similar use elsewhere? Putting on my reader's cap, at a glance it looks like the disambiguation hatnotes I through ] don't read unless and until I'm somehow not on the page I want. I would be more likely to look for it in the lead, as mentioned above, or in the template where it seems to already be located. ] (]) 08:14, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::I'm not sure of all the articles these items are used in. It's easy to see what links to <nowiki>{{main}} or {{further}}</nowiki> but not easy that I know of to search for those links only in the lead. You will see it also at the Olympics such as ] or ] They have certainly proliferated in tennis articles for some reason. And in fixing the known "main" issue in the lead I don't want to compound the problem by changing "main" to "further". Certainly we can get rid of all those templates in the lead but I wasn't sure if that was correct either. I looked for guidance in the templates themselves and only got it with "main" and "see also". I thought my betters here could shed some light. ] (]) 10:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::I've used {{tl\|Broader}} for this purpose, for example ]. The hatnote it creates there says "For broader coverage of this topic, see ]." so it looks appropriate. I guess hadn't looked carefully at the documentation because, you're right, it only talks about use in sections there. I would support updating the documentation to describe its use to create a hatnote at the top of the article. ~] (]) 16:45, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::I'd forgotten about "Broader" but that fits in the same pattern. Should it be used in the lead or only in sections of prose? And I'm sure if we allow it in the lead, some will be scratching their heads for a good reason why we treat "Main" and "See Also" differently. I think it should be clear in all these templates on where they can be used. Should we put the same updated documentation in all these templates that the lead is perfectly acceptable, other than "main" and "see also"? ] (]) 19:18, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 12:35, 19 January 2025

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.

Shortcut

WT:MOSLAYOUT

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

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

This project page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

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.

Single-sentence paragraphs

Re:

I suspect that most of MoS lacks such precise definition and requires judgment calls. Effectively in practice, the current guideline says, "Single-sentence paragraphs bad", and I witnessed it being interpreted/applied exactly that way just today. It wasn't the first time. That's a problem that needs addressing (there can't be a CREEP objection to re-wording a sentence), and I'm open to alternative suggestions. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:25, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps delete the entire wishy-washy sentence? Or, if it is important to say, move it to Misplaced Pages:Basic copyediting? It doesn't really seem to be a layout issue. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:44, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

I think "The number of single-sentence paragraphs should be minimized" is sane advice and don't see any good reason to change it. It doesn't say that such paragraphs are forbidden, but just that they should usually be avoided, which is a good rule of thumb and in agreement with my own editing experience. Gawaon (talk) 16:00, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

I think Mandruss is trying to solve the problem of editors reading "should be minimized" as "should be zero." Why not just remove the whole sentence*? See Misplaced Pages:If MOS doesn't need a rule on something, then it needs to not have a rule on that thing.

* To clarify, the "whole sentence" I'm proposing to remove is the one in this article that is causing the problem: The number of single-sentence paragraphs should be minimized, since they can inhibit the flow of the text; by the same token, paragraphs that exceed a certain length become hard to read.

- Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 18:47, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

If everything that can be misread is removed from the MOS, the MOS will be empty. Why not just point people who have misread something to the actual wording so they can read it again? Gawaon (talk) 18:52, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

They didn't misread it the first time. The problem is disagreement about whether the case in question is part of the "minimum". The guideline provides no answer, no help with that. A guideline that effectively says "Use your own judgment" is not a guideline and should be modified or eliminated per CREEP. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:41, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Some degree of judgement is always necessary, but that rule is still good advice. Gawaon (talk) 22:11, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Which rule? ―Mandruss ☎ 22:13, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

If everything that is good advice is placed in MOS, the MOS will be infinitely long. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 00:22, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

That, however, is not an argument for taking stuff out that's already in (and wasn't added just recently). Gawaon (talk) 06:25, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Right, it's no better argument than "If everything that can be misread is removed from the MOS, the MOS will be empty."

The argument for taking the sentence out is that is is not a "rule" but is being taken as one by some editors. See Misplaced Pages:If MOS doesn't need a rule on something, then it needs to not have a rule on that thing.

What - besides "it's been there for ages" - is the argument for keeping it in this guideline (rather than removing it or moving it to an essay)? - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:35, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

For whatever it’s worth, the essay WP:Writing better articles says: “One-sentence paragraphs are unusually emphatic, and should be used sparingly.” Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:35, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

External links followup

Greetings and felicitations. Per the discussion I just started on Talk:Wolverton Viaduct, it seems that we forgot to update or involve WP:MOSSIS or Template:Commons category—or Template:Commons for that matter. :-/ —DocWatson42 (talk) 19:42, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Interpretation of guideline concerning links to sister projects

The MOS:NOTSEEALSO guideline states (just slightly paraphrased) The "See also" section should not include red links or external links (including links to pages within Wikimedia sister projects. This seemed to me to apply but I was reverted here. Could we get a second opinion on whether these de.wiki links, which are redlinks on en.wiki, are appropriate or inappropriate? ☆ Bri (talk) 15:36, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

This would come down to three questions:

Are {{illm}} links counted as wikilinks (IMHO, yes) or as 'links to sister projects', i.e. the {{commons-inline}} form?
Are redlinks excluded from See Also ? Our basic policy says yes. However we have previously followed a practice where obvious sets, such as geographical sets (the case here) have been kept even though red.
Is an {{illm}} local redlink with a valid link to de:WP (and for an article that is essentially German) treated as a pure redlink to the same extent, re. purging them like this? Andy Dingley (talk) 17:30, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
There was a long and inconclusive discussion of {{ill}} links at Wikipedia_talk:Disambiguation#What_does_"under_certain_circumstances"_mean_in_WP:DABSISTER, which may be relevant.

PamD 20:04, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

I'd say the guideline is clear and interpret it as it's written, which means not to include links to sister projects (including Wikipedias in other languages) nor red links, as those won't benefit our average reader. (Red links might benefit editors and links to the German Misplaced Pages might benefit readers fluent in German, but I'd argue that neither can be considered as "average".) Gawaon (talk) 06:37, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

And yet if these weren't links at all, we might still include them (although not in this section) as a list of the related local equivalent sites. That, IMHO, is what tips these over. And even as someone with very poor German, I can follow a link and read a map (again, a useful action for this case). Andy Dingley (talk) 10:25, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Well, whether they belong into the "External links" section is a separate issue, to be discussed separately if somebody thinks so. But that doesn't magically change what's admissible for the "See also" section, which has its own clear rules. Gawaon (talk) 13:25, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

There is no way (nor has anyone suggested it) that they would belong under 'External links'

Even clear sister project links don't belong there. (They are floated CSS boxes, which are coded within the last section on the page. Although this is often 'External links', that's not where they're related to.) Andy Dingley (talk) 22:44, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

External links section

It is just an observation but the Further reading section reads An optional bulleted list, usually alphabetized... and Any links to external websites included under "Further reading" are subject to the guidelines described at Misplaced Pages:External links.,

The "External links" section is also an optional bulleted list but it does not state this. It does state "Depending on the nature of the link contents, this section may be accompanied or replaced by a "Further reading" section." I added the bold. The content guideline does contain: "Misplaced Pages articles may include external links".

It would seem to be less confusing to add "An optional bulleted list" because the section is "optional". -- Otr500 (talk) 15:14, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Almost every section discussed in Layout is optional. Perhaps a better solution would be to remove "optional" from Further reading. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:39, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

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

Placement of the "Bots" template?

Greetings and felicitations. Where should a "Bots" template be placed in an article? —DocWatson42 (talk) 14:42, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Use of template "further." Does it need clarification?

I work a lot with tennis articles and many have the {{main}} template placed above the lead. Lots and lots of them. Example 2024 ATP Finals – Singles. I was shown awhile ago that template "main" is never to be placed in the lead and it says so right in the template documentation. Several of us have been changing "main" to the template "further" to fix this disparity. Today I look at the template "see also" and it also says not to be used in the lead, only at the top of article sections. That got me to thinking why is the "further" template not clear on this placement? It says top of sections but says nothing about the article lead. Is this a mistake of not being clearer? I ask because Tennis Project is slowly fixing the "main" template to "further" and I don't want to find out later that no template at all should be in the lead. Should we be removing {{main}} completely, changing it to {{further}} or something else? And should the {{further}} template be made more clear as to its proper placement? Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:03, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

{{Broader}}? Moxy🍁 02:23, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

{{Broader}} is also just meant for sections, I'd seems. I'd rather avoid any such template in the lead but instead integrate the information into the running text: During the 2024 ATP Finals, Jannik Sinner defeated Taylor Fritz ... Gawaon (talk) 04:14, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

"Broader" has the same issue as "further" does. It says section and it talks about being used as a replacement for "main" and "see also" which are already listed as not being suited for the lead. I think what we need is something in the documentation of "further" and "broader" that says this can be used in the lead, or this should not be used in the lead. So editors will know. I'm not sure where I stand which is why I brought it here to discuss. We know "main" and "see also" do not get used in the lead. What do we do with "further" and now "broader?" Allow it, not allow it, encourage it's use or disuse? Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:09, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Is this mostly for tennis articles, or is there similar use elsewhere? Putting on my reader's cap, at a glance it looks like the disambiguation hatnotes I through banner blindness don't read unless and until I'm somehow not on the page I want. I would be more likely to look for it in the lead, as mentioned above, or in the template where it seems to already be located. CMD (talk) 08:14, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure of all the articles these items are used in. It's easy to see what links to {{main}} or {{further}} but not easy that I know of to search for those links only in the lead. You will see it also at the Olympics such as Badminton at the 2020 Summer Olympics – Women's singles or Table tennis at the 2008 Summer Olympics – Men's singles They have certainly proliferated in tennis articles for some reason. And in fixing the known "main" issue in the lead I don't want to compound the problem by changing "main" to "further". Certainly we can get rid of all those templates in the lead but I wasn't sure if that was correct either. I looked for guidance in the templates themselves and only got it with "main" and "see also". I thought my betters here could shed some light. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

I've used {{Broader}} for this purpose, for example Multicast address. The hatnote it creates there says "For broader coverage of this topic, see Multicast." so it looks appropriate. I guess hadn't looked carefully at the documentation because, you're right, it only talks about use in sections there. I would support updating the documentation to describe its use to create a hatnote at the top of the article. ~Kvng (talk) 16:45, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

I'd forgotten about "Broader" but that fits in the same pattern. Should it be used in the lead or only in sections of prose? And I'm sure if we allow it in the lead, some will be scratching their heads for a good reason why we treat "Main" and "See Also" differently. I think it should be clear in all these templates on where they can be used. Should we put the same updated documentation in all these templates that the lead is perfectly acceptable, other than "main" and "see also"? Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:18, 17 January 2025 (UTC)