This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Manual of Style/Layout page. |
|
Archives:
1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6,
7,
8,
9,
10,
11,
12,
13,
14,
15Auto-archiving period: 150 days
![]() |
![]() |
Manual of Style ![]() ![]() | |||||||||
|
![]() | Format of appendices Before proposing a change to the standard appendices, please study
Wikipedia:Perennial proposals § Changes to standard appendices. |
Maxeto0910 ( talk · contribs) has been adding periods to the end of see-also links when the short description provided in the link happens to resemble a grammatically complete sentence. Example: the link to Immerman–Szelepcsényi theorem in Savitch's theorem, provided using {{ annotated link}} to incorporate the short description of the linked article, currently "Nondeterministic space complexity classes are closed under complementation" (but significantly too long and in need of shortening). My position is that see-also entries in general, and the ones generated by annotated links in particular, are more often than not only sentence fragments, and that for consistency we should use a format for see-also sections in which the period is omitted from all entries. I don't see any guidance on this issue in MOS:SEEALSO, but this is consistent with all examples provided there, including the "Joe Shmoe" example which happens to resemble a grammatically complete sentence. Should this be addressed more explicitly there? — David Eppstein ( talk) 22:39, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
I've recently sorted a couple unsorted "Further reading" sections by publication date, earliest first, but have had this sort order opposed by Skyerise over at User talk:Tollens/Archive 4#You call that sorted?. It seems to me from a reading of both MOS:FURTHER and Wikipedia:Further reading that while such sections are frequently alphabetized, sorting chronologically is also appropriate. I would think that a chronological sort order makes more sense in further reading sections.
Alphabetization is of course so that it is easier to locate a given entry in a list, which is important for a general reference section because it will be referenced by inline citations – readers will therefore be searching a general reference section for a particular entry. In the case of further reading sections, however, there is no possible way for a reader to know in advance what entries are contained in the list, because they weren't referenced in the text of the article at any point – otherwise they would belong in a general reference section. Readers are then never searching a further reading section, but instead browsing the section. As described at Wikipedia:Further reading, this allows readers to do multiple things: skip to the newest writings recommended in the section, or see how opinions expressed on the topic have changed over time. An alphabetized list allows neither, allowing only for works to be grouped by author, which is not helpful unless the authors are especially well-known (in which case yes, alphabetization is likely of more use).
Clarifying MOS:FURTHER to either explicitly allow chronological ordering, explicitly disallow it, or alternatively specify what cases the "usually" currently in the guideline does not cover, would be appreciated. Tollens ( talk) 23:13, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
Is there any guidance anywhere for how long is "too long" for a paragraph in the new Vector skin or mobile view? This isn't a question about how to write better paragraphs and I'm not looking for answers about writing style. It's a question more about web accessibility. eg, now that the default skin maintains a narrower paragraph, do we hit "wall of text" problems in shorter paragraphs than before, or is that concern less relevant now? -- asilvering ( talk) 18:45, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
Hello
On the list List of universities in Ecuador I can't get the image to stay to the right and the table to the left in order to mimic the page in spanish -- HarveyPrototype ( talk) 05:30, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
I was told this section must follow the references section but for the vast majority of articles the references section is so huge and long, no sane human being will ever be able to scroll beyond it to find External Links, so they are basically lost for the reader.
And secondly in actual books References is the normally the very last section of the book.
I don't understand the rationale for actually burying/hiding/making inaccessible the external links. Artem S. Tashkinov ( talk) 10:57, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
to me they are as "external" as "external" links.
References
I've only recently begun seeing {{ CS1 config}}, {{ use list-defined references}}, and similar templates being added to articles. Speaking on the list at MOS:ORDER, do these count as " maintenance tags" (despite not being found at that page) for ordering purposes? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 22:32, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
this template should probably be placed adjacent to, and Template:Use list-defined references#Usage says{{ use dmy dates}}
or{{ use mdy dates}}
(if present)
Place this template near the top of articles that use the list-defined reference format.What's the problem here? -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 15:31, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
adjacent toand
near the topdoesn't answer my question of where they should specifically be placed (as the rest of MOS:ORDER is laid out) and whether they count as "' maintenance tags' (despite not being found at that page) for ordering purposes". — Fourthords | =Λ= | 17:44, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Manual of Style/Layout page. |
|
Archives:
1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6,
7,
8,
9,
10,
11,
12,
13,
14,
15Auto-archiving period: 150 days
![]() |
![]() |
Manual of Style ![]() ![]() | |||||||||
|
![]() | Format of appendices Before proposing a change to the standard appendices, please study
Wikipedia:Perennial proposals § Changes to standard appendices. |
Maxeto0910 ( talk · contribs) has been adding periods to the end of see-also links when the short description provided in the link happens to resemble a grammatically complete sentence. Example: the link to Immerman–Szelepcsényi theorem in Savitch's theorem, provided using {{ annotated link}} to incorporate the short description of the linked article, currently "Nondeterministic space complexity classes are closed under complementation" (but significantly too long and in need of shortening). My position is that see-also entries in general, and the ones generated by annotated links in particular, are more often than not only sentence fragments, and that for consistency we should use a format for see-also sections in which the period is omitted from all entries. I don't see any guidance on this issue in MOS:SEEALSO, but this is consistent with all examples provided there, including the "Joe Shmoe" example which happens to resemble a grammatically complete sentence. Should this be addressed more explicitly there? — David Eppstein ( talk) 22:39, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
I've recently sorted a couple unsorted "Further reading" sections by publication date, earliest first, but have had this sort order opposed by Skyerise over at User talk:Tollens/Archive 4#You call that sorted?. It seems to me from a reading of both MOS:FURTHER and Wikipedia:Further reading that while such sections are frequently alphabetized, sorting chronologically is also appropriate. I would think that a chronological sort order makes more sense in further reading sections.
Alphabetization is of course so that it is easier to locate a given entry in a list, which is important for a general reference section because it will be referenced by inline citations – readers will therefore be searching a general reference section for a particular entry. In the case of further reading sections, however, there is no possible way for a reader to know in advance what entries are contained in the list, because they weren't referenced in the text of the article at any point – otherwise they would belong in a general reference section. Readers are then never searching a further reading section, but instead browsing the section. As described at Wikipedia:Further reading, this allows readers to do multiple things: skip to the newest writings recommended in the section, or see how opinions expressed on the topic have changed over time. An alphabetized list allows neither, allowing only for works to be grouped by author, which is not helpful unless the authors are especially well-known (in which case yes, alphabetization is likely of more use).
Clarifying MOS:FURTHER to either explicitly allow chronological ordering, explicitly disallow it, or alternatively specify what cases the "usually" currently in the guideline does not cover, would be appreciated. Tollens ( talk) 23:13, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
Is there any guidance anywhere for how long is "too long" for a paragraph in the new Vector skin or mobile view? This isn't a question about how to write better paragraphs and I'm not looking for answers about writing style. It's a question more about web accessibility. eg, now that the default skin maintains a narrower paragraph, do we hit "wall of text" problems in shorter paragraphs than before, or is that concern less relevant now? -- asilvering ( talk) 18:45, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
Hello
On the list List of universities in Ecuador I can't get the image to stay to the right and the table to the left in order to mimic the page in spanish -- HarveyPrototype ( talk) 05:30, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
I was told this section must follow the references section but for the vast majority of articles the references section is so huge and long, no sane human being will ever be able to scroll beyond it to find External Links, so they are basically lost for the reader.
And secondly in actual books References is the normally the very last section of the book.
I don't understand the rationale for actually burying/hiding/making inaccessible the external links. Artem S. Tashkinov ( talk) 10:57, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
to me they are as "external" as "external" links.
References
I've only recently begun seeing {{ CS1 config}}, {{ use list-defined references}}, and similar templates being added to articles. Speaking on the list at MOS:ORDER, do these count as " maintenance tags" (despite not being found at that page) for ordering purposes? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 22:32, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
this template should probably be placed adjacent to, and Template:Use list-defined references#Usage says{{ use dmy dates}}
or{{ use mdy dates}}
(if present)
Place this template near the top of articles that use the list-defined reference format.What's the problem here? -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 15:31, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
adjacent toand
near the topdoesn't answer my question of where they should specifically be placed (as the rest of MOS:ORDER is laid out) and whether they count as "' maintenance tags' (despite not being found at that page) for ordering purposes". — Fourthords | =Λ= | 17:44, 13 June 2024 (UTC)