![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
Just with regard to this -- In July 2007, a consensus of four editors had a cursory discussion which is now to be found in archive 1 here as a result of which this edit was made. I would have objected at the time, if I had known, but I'm afraid that during this period I was not aware that I needed to watchlist obscure manual of style subpages to prevent people from very insistently enforcing these ill-thought-through rules on content that I maintain. The matter has annoyed the hell out of me in the past and now it's irritating me again: let's revert and remove. There's a longstanding consensus supported by excellent reasons about why redlinks are allowed on Wikipedia ---- see WP:REDLINK which has extensive archives. Why and how does it make sense for "See also" sections to be a special exception?— S Marshall T/ C 21:12, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
I prefer to keep the current prohibition against red links in see also sections. Without this prohibition, one could foresee the see also sections becoming collections of article titles that some editors think ought to exist but can't be bothered to create. I don't see how that's helpful. CUA 27 ( talk) 22:16, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
In the first sentence of MOS:ORDER, “simple article” links to a section of WP:STUB that was renamed in revision 659534886 from “Ideal stub article” to “Creating and improving a stub article”. The link here should be updated to reflect the change, I believe. (Or an anchor added there and linked here, not sure if this is necessary.) Being unable to edit semi-protected pages yet, I propose the change here. Palec90 ( talk) 00:32, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
In the section "Standard appendices and footers", in the subsection "'See also' section" ( MOS:SEEALSO or WP:ALSO), the fourth paragraph has
This proposal is to remove the reference to article body (and FWIW also the bolding), leaving only the proscription regarding navigation boxes, thus:
Another editor has invoked this, and looking at it, it seems a poor rule.
For long articles, there's no real reason to it. The original introduction of a term, with its link, may be many paragraphs above and kind of lost among the text. Gathering links to a few of the most cogent articles together into a special section where we can say "Hey, if you're interested in the material in this article, here is list of related articles which we have curated which bear closely on the subject, and which we suggest might broaden or deepen your understanding of the general subject". That's what a "See also" section is for, I guess. Whether the term was introduced somewhere in the article does not bear terribly strongly on that, either way.
In fact, thinking about it... if you've got some terms in the "See also" section, and some of them have been introduced in the the text and some haven't, isn't it kind of backwards to proscribe the ones that have been introduced in the text? Aren't those more likely to bear on the subject? Maybe not in particular cases, but statistically speaking if you analyzed a bunch of articles? Maybe a better rule would be "As a general rule, the "See also" section should not introduce links that do not appear in the article's body, because if the text hasn't seen fit to mention them before maybe they are not that germane". I'm not suggesting that, but if you have an existing rule, and a good case can be made that its exact opposite might be a better rule, you just might have a not-so-great rule on your hands.
Anyway... presenting different ways for the reader to access information is, mostly, a good thing. Not always -- we don't want to overwhelm or confuse the reader. But generally, because people are approaching the article from different perspectives, and because people think differently, it's OK to be of the mind "Let's let them access the information from Location X or from Location Y". IMO this is good interface design.
This rule might apply to short or very short articles, I guess. If you have a two-paragraph article maybe you don't want have two links to the same article, since they would be pretty close to each other, and thus WP:OVERLINK could come in. I don't think it's worth having the rule just for that.
Also FWIW -- and it's worth quite a bit IMO -- is this rule even followed that much? I've been around an while and it never came across my radar before. Rules are supposed to codify general/best practice, and if this rule is only followed sporadically -- not sure, but could well be -- that's another reason for sending it to the bit bucket. Herostratus ( talk) 18:01, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Another thought is, that if you're called on this -- and maybe you can invoke the "As a general rule..." clause and the "Whether a link belongs in the 'See also' section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense" sentence, and win the argument for an exception, but if you have a rule the assumption is that in most cases it's going to be applied and enforced -- you're then left with the conundrum "should I delink the occurrence in the article body, even though it's appropriate and useful there, so that I can link to the article in the See also section, where it might be even more useful?". I'm not see how presenting editors with this choice is helpful to the reader. Herostratus ( talk) 22:57, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Maybe the problem is "As a general rule," What about removing that and replacing it with "Except when the link has a strong connection to the article," (or something similar). That would give more guidance regarding when there is an exception to the rule. Butwhatdoiknow ( talk) 12:24, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
If you are interested in MOS:APPENDIX questions (such as where to place templates like {{ authority control}}), then please see Template talk:Medical resources#RfC on placement of Medical condition classification and resources template. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 18:20, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
@
Ettrig: The documentation at {{
Expand French}} says: "This template marks an opportunity, not a fault. It is less important than a stub mark. Therefore it should not be used as an urgent warning in the beginning of articles.
" but gives no indication where it should be placed. Presumably all this family of templates have similar wording - I've checked {{
Expand Afrikaans}} and it certainly does.
There is no mention of this group of templates in WP:ORDER, as far as I can see. It would be useful if these templates had a mention in WP:ORDER - somewhere in "Bottom matter", perhaps after the "Featured list" etc templates?
One of these templates has recently been moved from top to bottom of an article, with edit summary (Moving template to bottom, this is not the most important info)
: I don't disagree but am sure I've seen these templates at the top of many articles and would like to see a statement in this MOS guideline.
Ah, have just noticed discussion at Template_talk:Expand_French#Do not place at the top, and now found Template_talk:Expand_language#Attempts_to_change_the_placement_of_expand_language_templates_without_consensus. Lots of reading there, but extremely relevant to this MOS guideline which is where people will look for a definitive answer. Pam D 07:51, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
My request is that this template should be placed near the bottom of the articles and that the documentation should say this. The main argument for this is the principle that the articles should have the most important information first, combined with my evaluation that this template does not hold important information. The only value for the reader is the potential indirect effect of inspiring to a translation effort. This hope is dubious. Of the last 100 articles that I checked and changed, a vast majority of the articles were tagged in 2008, so they have disturbed the reader for a very long time, without the wanted effect. Exactly 83 (of the 100) pointed to articles in French that were marked as stubs. The vast majority of them were bot generated. So the request wasn't even reasonable. This shows that the process around this template does not provide for reasonable quality of marking, which in turn points at low importance.
The only counter argument that I have seen is that there is a consensus for status quo and that therefore a consensus must be reached for a change to take place. This argument is not valid. Already the second discussion on this talk page raises the same concern. That discussion died out without reaching a conclusion. It mentions two RFCs that showed the same pattern. When I much more recently raised the concern, the one answer was positive concerning the substance.
The Expand template can be compared to the stub marking. Stub marking marks a deficiency. Still it is put at the bottom of articles, so as not to disturb the reader more than necessary. Expand does not even mark a deficiency, so it is less important. Therefore it is even less reasonable to let it disturb the reader a much as it does when it is placed on the top of the article. The stub template is also smaller and therefore even less disturbing. It can be assumed that the handling of the stub template is more thoroughly thought thru, since it is orders of magnitude more common. -- Ettrig ( talk) 10:59, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
{{
Expand language}}
templates are all categorized as maintenance templates. The fact that stub templates go to the bottom has nothing to do with importance either. They go to the bottom because the MOS says they do. –
Finnusertop (
talk ⋅
contribs) 04:09, 7 June 2017 (UTC)The language was not there since 2009; you are displaying a 2009 page which is transcluding a 2017 subpage, so you are misinterpreting the facts.
Summary of some disputed template instructions.
The instructions from creation through August 2016 merely said, "Tag it with [the template]..." and everyone interpreted that as meaning tag it at the top, in accordance with long-standing practice. (For a short while, some interpreted it to mean tag the article talk page instead, resulting in nonsensical categorization of talk pages, but this was cleared up with a simple instruction change.)
Two elements of the template instructions were altered by User Ettrig on Aug 30 2016 against long-standing practice. They are:
These were subject to reverts and edits which either placed both of them back in the instructions or reverted both of them together, until May 5 2017 when an attempted revert by Mathglot reverted #1 but left #2 in place, and that is how it stands now.
So, as was said elsewhere, Ettrig first changed the instructions, began a massive change to articles, and edit-warred on the instructions when challenged. His preferred language remains in the template doc now in part (the "stub" and "importance" language) and that language as well as the "near the bottom" language is all recent, and is all due exclusively to his edits. Mathglot ( talk) 02:05, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Another note: The scale of changes currently being made by Ettrig illustrates how these templates have historically been used almost exclusively at the top of article pages (setting aside what the template instructions themselves say). That is, there has been essentially a consensus in practice. Calliopejen1 ( talk) 04:51, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Should the expand language templates be placed at the top of the article or toward the bottom?
Context:
{{
refimprove}}
which is sometimes placed in the References section and has the (debatable) merit that it relates directly to that section. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk) 20:27, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
{{
expand language}}
, to those articles which have more than perhaps 20k of untranslated content in the foreign language wiki (i.e. en.wiki has an article size of perhaps 15k, and fr.wiki has a parallel article of perhaps 40k).
EP111 (
talk) 13:51, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
WP:CON says: When agreement cannot be reached through editing alone, the consensus-forming process becomes more explicit: editors open a section on the talk page and try to work out the dispute through discussion. Here editors try to persuade others, using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense; they can also suggest alternative solutions or compromises that may satisfy all concerns. The normal process is that differences are solved through editing. When there is difficulty in reaching an agreement, the next step is discussion. This issue was in a quasi-consensus state. The edits were overwhelmingly top. This placement was sometimes challenged, but the discussions died out without reaching any conclusion. Note that even if there is an edit consensus, it is always up for challenge, and then there is to be a discussion. Most of the statements for TOP claim that status quo holds because it is status quo and that no other motivation is needed. This view is not in line with the guideline. -- Ettrig ( talk) 09:29, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
I suggest changing the following:
This section is not intended as a repository for general references that were used to create the article content.
to
This section is not intended as a repository for general references or full citations that were used to create the article content.
Basically, the section tries to instruct how to ensure that works that verify article content and works that don't are listed separately. This is, however, not the case (neither in the guideline or even always in articles).
In the following example, the book on the heat of the Sun was consulted (it is a " general reference"). The guideline tells you not to group it with the further reading entry:
![]()
The sun is pretty hot.
Further reading
- Miller, Edward. The Sun's Size. Celestial Books, 2013.
- Smith, John. The Sun's Heat. Academic Press, 2005.
However, the definition of " general references" does not include full citations of works that are cited through short citations. Thus the current guideline does not forbid the following, which confuses works that are cited and works that are not:
![]()
The sun is pretty hot. [1]
References
- ^ Smith, 2005, p. 2.
Further reading
- Miller, Edward. The Sun's Size. Celestial Books, 2013.
- Smith, John. The Sun's Heat. Academic Press, 2005.
Should the suggested wording be adopted, editors could place full citations under any title they choose except for the confusing "Further reading":
![]()
The sun is pretty hot. [1]
References
- ^ Smith, 2005, p. 2.
- Smith, John. The Sun's Heat. Academic Press, 2005.
Further reading
- Miller, Edward. The Sun's Size. Celestial Books, 2013.
– Finnusertop ( talk ⋅ contribs) 23:53, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
I propose changing one sentence in the MOS:BODY section titled "Headings and Sections" from this:
to this:
There are three reasons for the proposed change. The first is simply logic: if single-paragraph sections are generally unwarranted because they are too short, then single-sentence sections should be even more disfavored. The second is that the current guidance stating that single-sentence sections are generally unwarranted seems rather weak; an editor could claim that a ten-section article in which three sections are composed of a single sentence each follows MOS:BODY because the sections generally (i.e., a majority of the sections) are composed of more than one sentence. The third is based in practice: a number of WikiProjects give helpful guidance as to how their more meaty articles should be structured, but relatively short articles probably shouldn't be divided into sections in an attempt to follow these structures. CUA 27 ( talk) 14:05, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
This may be substantial enough for a discussion, so I reverted a change I'd made removing the words 'or navigation boxes' from the sentence "As a general rule, the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes". The language is outdated, as now half of Wikipedia's readers don't see templates. Half of the readers, those who access Wikipedia on (many? most? all?) mobile devices, can't see navbox links. So they don't get the choice to read and click on those links. My reasoning is that Wikipedia's mobile readers should also be given the chance to see pertinent links, and the 'See also' section is a common way of doing that. Randy Kryn ( talk) 19:32, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Please do not spam the reader. Not with links. Not with notices that linkspam does not show. Not with anything else. FleetCommand ( Speak your mind!) 05:00, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
I suggest adding something to the following effect to MOS:SEEALSO:
It looks neater, and I see most see also sections linking to a section, don't use it yet, so it is worth promoting as style. Take the example:
Versus:
The "§" style is already in general use as part of {{ see also}}, and more see also sections are using it over time. edit:I think we should use the § sign for the same reason we don't use underscores in links. It looks neater, looks less technical, and also has more common usage in printed written texts than "#".16:44, 26 May 2017 (UTC) -- BurritoBazooka Talk Contribs 17:05, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Regarding MOS:SECTIONORDER—is the feeling that cleanup and dispute templates should go before or after {{Use [date style]}} and {{Use [language dialect]}}? I'm inclined to favor putting the "Use __" templates first so that they can be seen by editors, rather than be lost in the clutter.— DocWatson42 ( talk) 09:30, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
{{
italic title}}
, {{
use dmy dates}}
and similar down at the bottom, in the same place that {{
coord}}
goes - between navboxes and defaultsort. But then somebody comes along and moves it to the top, probably ignoring
WP:HNP whilst so doing. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk) 05:51, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
{{
Italic title}}
says "place this template in the article, normally at the very top" which, taken literally, contradicts
WP:HNP. It's also a special case of {{
display title}}
or the preferred magic word "DISPLAYTITLE", which are also not listed in
WP:ORDER. The notes on DISPLAYTITLE say "The title (the fullpagename) is changed using {{DISPLAYTITLE:namespace:pagename}} anywhere in the wikitext."
Pam
D 07:16, 11 August 2017 (UTC){{
Italic title}}
with {{
Use dmy dates}}
etc. at the top. Putting them at the bottom/end matter of the article (and I'm including {{
Coord}}
in this) means that they tend to get missed, and since they affect the entire article I feel that they should be where they can be easily found and so that editors can be informed of the expected "style". Specifically, in my opinion since {{
Coord}}
using the "title" parameter is displayed at the top of the article, unless there is a technical issue (e.g., in screen reading browsers for the blind) it should join the the other items at the top. But I realize that's (probably) another can of worms that I'm opening.—
DocWatson42 (
talk) 05:26, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
{{
Italic title}}
and {{
display title}}
.
Hawkeye7
(talk) 22:56, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
I was editing the King of the Gypsies article, changing the sub-headings size but I noticed that there is no visible difference between sub-headings 2,3 and 4, so the sub-heading 4 seems to be in the same category as the sub-heading 2 instead of making the reader know that sub-heading 4 is a subset of sub-heading 3 and not directly of sub-heading 1. Compare the changes in my edit with the previous version of the section of the article modified to have a more clear idea. I think sub-headings size should be discernible different to let know the reader that it is a subsection of a higher subheading/heading. Thinker78 ( talk) 17:45, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
According to the MOS:ORDER, every categories are placed at the bottom of an article before the stub template comes. However, the explanation does not seem to apply to the Category:Kvng RTH. Should I follow the guideline of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout, or conform to the category usage? -- Ykhwong ( talk) 00:18, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
[[Category:Kvng RTH]]
is placed after the text in the
History section, and not at the bottom of the page with the other categories. The category seems to exist purely to show which articles
Kvng (
talk ·
contribs) has worked on. It is clear that the category is being misused in more ways than one. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk) 09:45, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
From my talk page, based on a recent bold edit (and my revert) to the guideline:
Hi Izno,
I'm not sure what you meant by "Based on?" in your revert [1]. It should not normally be necessary to state that redirects are allowed in See Also section, because they always were.
However, occasionally I see people replacing redirects by piped or direct links (which is not only against WP:NOTBROKEN and WP:NOPIPE, but makes article maintenance much more difficult). Sometimes, redirects happen to point to different sections in the same target article, which is, of course, perfectly fine. However, if such redirects happen to be listed in a See also section, some editors seem to believe it would be okay to remove them simply because they are pointing to the same target article not realizing that by doing so they are destroying infrastructure (unless there are other reasons to remove such links as well). For as long as the listed terms in a See also section are relevant in the context of the source article (and therefore should be included in a See also list), the organization of the contents in the target article(s) is irrelevant, because redirects may become articles, contents may be moved around, articles may become merged etc. over time and it would be impractical to try and keep all the links in source articles in sync with such changes - after all, one of the purposes for redirects is to "abstract" contents from organization. Of course, this should be obvious to any experienced editor. Unfortunately, it still happens from time to time, and that's why I added that sentence.
-- Matthiaspaul ( talk) 00:52, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Matthiaspaul, if you can defend a link on a NOTBROKEN basis, then you should do so. (NOTBROKEN has limits, of course.)
I don't honestly agree with you about the rest of your concern--while it's true that redirects may become articles and that articles may get moved or merged or what not, I don't find that alone an overwhelming reason to let redirects to an article remain in the article's see also. If you have reasonable belief that a redirect to the self-same article will be expanded from its redirect state, then you should keep it and leave a note on the talk page (and possibly in the wiki text pointing to the talk page).
(On a somewhat converse point, WP:SEEALSO doesn't, and shouldn't, forbid redirects here.)
In the general though, we don't insert policy or guideline advice just to head off the dispute that you (specific) happen to have at any given time (and with guidance that is positive for your side of the dispute), but which we (general) happen to have at any given time. Is this a continuing point of contention that you are having with an editor? Multiple other editors? Are you the only one with this apparent issue? Are you sure your suggested change has a consensus, or might it be the case that you are the only one who thinks that this solution is the correct one? -- Izno ( talk) 01:40, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Noticed we had a few editwars over links removed from "See also" sections because the links were in the footer template (pointing here for validations). I think our rule on this needs updating as 50% plus of our readers dont see footers because of mobile view limitations. Think its best we remove the bold text as outdated that makes navigation harder for our mobile readers.-- Moxy ( talk) 15:23, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
As a general rule, the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes.
Is there any general consensus about how many subsections a section should have? I've read elsewhere that one subsection under a section is considered a bad practice. I bring this up because Black Panther (film) has a "Release" section with the first paragraph (before the "Marketing" subsection) having over 200 words and the "Marketing" subsection itself having over 1,200 words. It seems to be huge over-emphasis on a sub-topic that is technically more pre-release than release. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 13:18, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Short descriptions will be needed on all articles in main space. The history of this development can be followed by the truly masochistic in a series of discussions linked from Wikipedia:WikiProject Short descriptions. The short description is effectively an extension or annotation to the title intended to clarify the scope of the article and is considered essential by WMF as an aid to the reader. It will be displayed on mobile view as default and will probably be the first content from the article encountered by the mobile user. It may be displayed on desktop view by using a script, possibly later an integral gadget. It will be visible in source edit mode where it is placed in the code, and should be the first text below the title, before any hatnotes, as it an extension of the title.
I propose that the MOS/Layout be amended as follows to specify this position.
In "Order of article elements", change item
to read:
Cheers, · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 14:04, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
display:none
to the short description (whereas mobile view and app CSS will enable display). Because screen readers ignore text that has display:none
set, the short descriptions won't be heard via screen readers on the desktop version. --
RexxS (
talk) 02:37, 18 February 2018 (UTC)A Wikipedia:Short description is now required in all articles. See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Short descriptions for background and previous discussions. The related magic word has been partially implemented by WMF, and we now have a rather large job ahead to add short descriptions to articles. The short description, when made visible by opt-in gadget or user css, serves as an annotation to the title, and this is its intended purpose, and the purpose for which WMF Reading team intend to use it. To function as an annotation to the title, it should display immediately after the title, or as close as reasonably practicable to immediately after the title. To achieve this, we have been adding the template as the first line of the article. AWB currently automatically moves the {{ short description}} to below the hatnotes, where it is no longer obviously an annotation to the title.
Currently the default is that the short description is not visible in desktop read view, so will not inluence screen readers at all unless the user is logged in and has elected to make it visible. Disambiguation hatnotes and short descriptions should normally be complementary, or at worst repetitive, and then only if visible.
I propose a change to the standard order of an article, putting short description as the first item in the file, so that the AWB developers can amend the instructions to leave it there, and move it there when found somewhere else. as described above.
Is local consensus sufficient, or should I open an RfC at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) for this? · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 09:45, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Are we actually expecting the template to be displayed as a static block element? If I understand correctly, the normal use of the template will be only to call the SHORTDESC magic word. For this, the placement shouldn't matter, and it might actually be preferable to place it near the bottom (along with COORD and FA star templates and DEFAULTSORT declarations) to avoid being inadvertently overridden by later magic word calls. It has also been raised that placement at the top might make it more prone to vandalism (though I'm not quite sure about this). The only reason for placing the template at the top of the article appears to be so that users may tweak the CSS to have it show on the desktop. But for this, wouldn't it be better to use CSS to automatically position the description at the top of the page (similarly to coordinates) rather than relying on manual placement in the source? -- Paul_012 ( talk) 14:31, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
<h1 id="firstHeading" class="firstHeading" lang="en">Example</h1>
<div id="bodyContent" class="mw-body-content">
<div id="siteSub">From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia</div>
<div id="contentSub"></div>
<div id="jump-to-nav" class="mw-jump">Jump to: <a href="#column-one">navigation</a>, <a href="#searchInput">search</a></div>
<!-- start content -->
<h1>...</h1>
element. However, we have no means for injecting content at any point above the <!--start content-->
comment - we would need a MediaWiki change for that, hence
phab: (this is not the end of the world, we got a MediaWiki change made for topicons, but it took some time).{{
Short description}}
template displays its output at whatever point in the page the template is placed, we must consider accessibility. In my opinion, it is confirmation that the reader has reached the desired page, rather like hatnotes -
WP:HNP says "
Text-only browsers and
screen readers present the page sequentially. If a reader has reached the wrong page, they typically want to know that first." So the short desc and the hatnotes must be together; the only question is which goes first? I would say the short desc should be first of all. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk) 14:41, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
At Talk:Lesbian literature#See also, opinions are needed on whether or not the gay literature and bisexual literature links should be in the See also section of the Lesbian literature article. A permalink for the discussion is here. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 10:42, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
I have always seen it near the top of the page, but this guide says to put it at the bottom of the page. Where should it specifically go in the top of the page, and can we correct the MoS to reflect that? Kees08 (Talk) 08:14, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
{{
featured article}}
or indeed {{
good article}}
, those are normally placed by
Legobot (
talk ·
contribs) at the very top (
example) so getting them repositioned to the bottom would mean a bot coding amendment. If you have been following
User talk:Legobot and
User talk:Legoktm (as I have for over two years), you'll realise that it's not going to happen. Note that the position of {{
featured article}}
and {{
good article}}
are only relevant when editing the page: in the served HTML, the icons always end up in the same place, so their placement in the source is immaterial. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk) 11:22, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
Just with regard to this -- In July 2007, a consensus of four editors had a cursory discussion which is now to be found in archive 1 here as a result of which this edit was made. I would have objected at the time, if I had known, but I'm afraid that during this period I was not aware that I needed to watchlist obscure manual of style subpages to prevent people from very insistently enforcing these ill-thought-through rules on content that I maintain. The matter has annoyed the hell out of me in the past and now it's irritating me again: let's revert and remove. There's a longstanding consensus supported by excellent reasons about why redlinks are allowed on Wikipedia ---- see WP:REDLINK which has extensive archives. Why and how does it make sense for "See also" sections to be a special exception?— S Marshall T/ C 21:12, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
I prefer to keep the current prohibition against red links in see also sections. Without this prohibition, one could foresee the see also sections becoming collections of article titles that some editors think ought to exist but can't be bothered to create. I don't see how that's helpful. CUA 27 ( talk) 22:16, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
In the first sentence of MOS:ORDER, “simple article” links to a section of WP:STUB that was renamed in revision 659534886 from “Ideal stub article” to “Creating and improving a stub article”. The link here should be updated to reflect the change, I believe. (Or an anchor added there and linked here, not sure if this is necessary.) Being unable to edit semi-protected pages yet, I propose the change here. Palec90 ( talk) 00:32, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
In the section "Standard appendices and footers", in the subsection "'See also' section" ( MOS:SEEALSO or WP:ALSO), the fourth paragraph has
This proposal is to remove the reference to article body (and FWIW also the bolding), leaving only the proscription regarding navigation boxes, thus:
Another editor has invoked this, and looking at it, it seems a poor rule.
For long articles, there's no real reason to it. The original introduction of a term, with its link, may be many paragraphs above and kind of lost among the text. Gathering links to a few of the most cogent articles together into a special section where we can say "Hey, if you're interested in the material in this article, here is list of related articles which we have curated which bear closely on the subject, and which we suggest might broaden or deepen your understanding of the general subject". That's what a "See also" section is for, I guess. Whether the term was introduced somewhere in the article does not bear terribly strongly on that, either way.
In fact, thinking about it... if you've got some terms in the "See also" section, and some of them have been introduced in the the text and some haven't, isn't it kind of backwards to proscribe the ones that have been introduced in the text? Aren't those more likely to bear on the subject? Maybe not in particular cases, but statistically speaking if you analyzed a bunch of articles? Maybe a better rule would be "As a general rule, the "See also" section should not introduce links that do not appear in the article's body, because if the text hasn't seen fit to mention them before maybe they are not that germane". I'm not suggesting that, but if you have an existing rule, and a good case can be made that its exact opposite might be a better rule, you just might have a not-so-great rule on your hands.
Anyway... presenting different ways for the reader to access information is, mostly, a good thing. Not always -- we don't want to overwhelm or confuse the reader. But generally, because people are approaching the article from different perspectives, and because people think differently, it's OK to be of the mind "Let's let them access the information from Location X or from Location Y". IMO this is good interface design.
This rule might apply to short or very short articles, I guess. If you have a two-paragraph article maybe you don't want have two links to the same article, since they would be pretty close to each other, and thus WP:OVERLINK could come in. I don't think it's worth having the rule just for that.
Also FWIW -- and it's worth quite a bit IMO -- is this rule even followed that much? I've been around an while and it never came across my radar before. Rules are supposed to codify general/best practice, and if this rule is only followed sporadically -- not sure, but could well be -- that's another reason for sending it to the bit bucket. Herostratus ( talk) 18:01, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Another thought is, that if you're called on this -- and maybe you can invoke the "As a general rule..." clause and the "Whether a link belongs in the 'See also' section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense" sentence, and win the argument for an exception, but if you have a rule the assumption is that in most cases it's going to be applied and enforced -- you're then left with the conundrum "should I delink the occurrence in the article body, even though it's appropriate and useful there, so that I can link to the article in the See also section, where it might be even more useful?". I'm not see how presenting editors with this choice is helpful to the reader. Herostratus ( talk) 22:57, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Maybe the problem is "As a general rule," What about removing that and replacing it with "Except when the link has a strong connection to the article," (or something similar). That would give more guidance regarding when there is an exception to the rule. Butwhatdoiknow ( talk) 12:24, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
If you are interested in MOS:APPENDIX questions (such as where to place templates like {{ authority control}}), then please see Template talk:Medical resources#RfC on placement of Medical condition classification and resources template. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 18:20, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
@
Ettrig: The documentation at {{
Expand French}} says: "This template marks an opportunity, not a fault. It is less important than a stub mark. Therefore it should not be used as an urgent warning in the beginning of articles.
" but gives no indication where it should be placed. Presumably all this family of templates have similar wording - I've checked {{
Expand Afrikaans}} and it certainly does.
There is no mention of this group of templates in WP:ORDER, as far as I can see. It would be useful if these templates had a mention in WP:ORDER - somewhere in "Bottom matter", perhaps after the "Featured list" etc templates?
One of these templates has recently been moved from top to bottom of an article, with edit summary (Moving template to bottom, this is not the most important info)
: I don't disagree but am sure I've seen these templates at the top of many articles and would like to see a statement in this MOS guideline.
Ah, have just noticed discussion at Template_talk:Expand_French#Do not place at the top, and now found Template_talk:Expand_language#Attempts_to_change_the_placement_of_expand_language_templates_without_consensus. Lots of reading there, but extremely relevant to this MOS guideline which is where people will look for a definitive answer. Pam D 07:51, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
My request is that this template should be placed near the bottom of the articles and that the documentation should say this. The main argument for this is the principle that the articles should have the most important information first, combined with my evaluation that this template does not hold important information. The only value for the reader is the potential indirect effect of inspiring to a translation effort. This hope is dubious. Of the last 100 articles that I checked and changed, a vast majority of the articles were tagged in 2008, so they have disturbed the reader for a very long time, without the wanted effect. Exactly 83 (of the 100) pointed to articles in French that were marked as stubs. The vast majority of them were bot generated. So the request wasn't even reasonable. This shows that the process around this template does not provide for reasonable quality of marking, which in turn points at low importance.
The only counter argument that I have seen is that there is a consensus for status quo and that therefore a consensus must be reached for a change to take place. This argument is not valid. Already the second discussion on this talk page raises the same concern. That discussion died out without reaching a conclusion. It mentions two RFCs that showed the same pattern. When I much more recently raised the concern, the one answer was positive concerning the substance.
The Expand template can be compared to the stub marking. Stub marking marks a deficiency. Still it is put at the bottom of articles, so as not to disturb the reader more than necessary. Expand does not even mark a deficiency, so it is less important. Therefore it is even less reasonable to let it disturb the reader a much as it does when it is placed on the top of the article. The stub template is also smaller and therefore even less disturbing. It can be assumed that the handling of the stub template is more thoroughly thought thru, since it is orders of magnitude more common. -- Ettrig ( talk) 10:59, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
{{
Expand language}}
templates are all categorized as maintenance templates. The fact that stub templates go to the bottom has nothing to do with importance either. They go to the bottom because the MOS says they do. –
Finnusertop (
talk ⋅
contribs) 04:09, 7 June 2017 (UTC)The language was not there since 2009; you are displaying a 2009 page which is transcluding a 2017 subpage, so you are misinterpreting the facts.
Summary of some disputed template instructions.
The instructions from creation through August 2016 merely said, "Tag it with [the template]..." and everyone interpreted that as meaning tag it at the top, in accordance with long-standing practice. (For a short while, some interpreted it to mean tag the article talk page instead, resulting in nonsensical categorization of talk pages, but this was cleared up with a simple instruction change.)
Two elements of the template instructions were altered by User Ettrig on Aug 30 2016 against long-standing practice. They are:
These were subject to reverts and edits which either placed both of them back in the instructions or reverted both of them together, until May 5 2017 when an attempted revert by Mathglot reverted #1 but left #2 in place, and that is how it stands now.
So, as was said elsewhere, Ettrig first changed the instructions, began a massive change to articles, and edit-warred on the instructions when challenged. His preferred language remains in the template doc now in part (the "stub" and "importance" language) and that language as well as the "near the bottom" language is all recent, and is all due exclusively to his edits. Mathglot ( talk) 02:05, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Another note: The scale of changes currently being made by Ettrig illustrates how these templates have historically been used almost exclusively at the top of article pages (setting aside what the template instructions themselves say). That is, there has been essentially a consensus in practice. Calliopejen1 ( talk) 04:51, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Should the expand language templates be placed at the top of the article or toward the bottom?
Context:
{{
refimprove}}
which is sometimes placed in the References section and has the (debatable) merit that it relates directly to that section. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk) 20:27, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
{{
expand language}}
, to those articles which have more than perhaps 20k of untranslated content in the foreign language wiki (i.e. en.wiki has an article size of perhaps 15k, and fr.wiki has a parallel article of perhaps 40k).
EP111 (
talk) 13:51, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
WP:CON says: When agreement cannot be reached through editing alone, the consensus-forming process becomes more explicit: editors open a section on the talk page and try to work out the dispute through discussion. Here editors try to persuade others, using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense; they can also suggest alternative solutions or compromises that may satisfy all concerns. The normal process is that differences are solved through editing. When there is difficulty in reaching an agreement, the next step is discussion. This issue was in a quasi-consensus state. The edits were overwhelmingly top. This placement was sometimes challenged, but the discussions died out without reaching any conclusion. Note that even if there is an edit consensus, it is always up for challenge, and then there is to be a discussion. Most of the statements for TOP claim that status quo holds because it is status quo and that no other motivation is needed. This view is not in line with the guideline. -- Ettrig ( talk) 09:29, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
I suggest changing the following:
This section is not intended as a repository for general references that were used to create the article content.
to
This section is not intended as a repository for general references or full citations that were used to create the article content.
Basically, the section tries to instruct how to ensure that works that verify article content and works that don't are listed separately. This is, however, not the case (neither in the guideline or even always in articles).
In the following example, the book on the heat of the Sun was consulted (it is a " general reference"). The guideline tells you not to group it with the further reading entry:
![]()
The sun is pretty hot.
Further reading
- Miller, Edward. The Sun's Size. Celestial Books, 2013.
- Smith, John. The Sun's Heat. Academic Press, 2005.
However, the definition of " general references" does not include full citations of works that are cited through short citations. Thus the current guideline does not forbid the following, which confuses works that are cited and works that are not:
![]()
The sun is pretty hot. [1]
References
- ^ Smith, 2005, p. 2.
Further reading
- Miller, Edward. The Sun's Size. Celestial Books, 2013.
- Smith, John. The Sun's Heat. Academic Press, 2005.
Should the suggested wording be adopted, editors could place full citations under any title they choose except for the confusing "Further reading":
![]()
The sun is pretty hot. [1]
References
- ^ Smith, 2005, p. 2.
- Smith, John. The Sun's Heat. Academic Press, 2005.
Further reading
- Miller, Edward. The Sun's Size. Celestial Books, 2013.
– Finnusertop ( talk ⋅ contribs) 23:53, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
I propose changing one sentence in the MOS:BODY section titled "Headings and Sections" from this:
to this:
There are three reasons for the proposed change. The first is simply logic: if single-paragraph sections are generally unwarranted because they are too short, then single-sentence sections should be even more disfavored. The second is that the current guidance stating that single-sentence sections are generally unwarranted seems rather weak; an editor could claim that a ten-section article in which three sections are composed of a single sentence each follows MOS:BODY because the sections generally (i.e., a majority of the sections) are composed of more than one sentence. The third is based in practice: a number of WikiProjects give helpful guidance as to how their more meaty articles should be structured, but relatively short articles probably shouldn't be divided into sections in an attempt to follow these structures. CUA 27 ( talk) 14:05, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
This may be substantial enough for a discussion, so I reverted a change I'd made removing the words 'or navigation boxes' from the sentence "As a general rule, the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes". The language is outdated, as now half of Wikipedia's readers don't see templates. Half of the readers, those who access Wikipedia on (many? most? all?) mobile devices, can't see navbox links. So they don't get the choice to read and click on those links. My reasoning is that Wikipedia's mobile readers should also be given the chance to see pertinent links, and the 'See also' section is a common way of doing that. Randy Kryn ( talk) 19:32, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Please do not spam the reader. Not with links. Not with notices that linkspam does not show. Not with anything else. FleetCommand ( Speak your mind!) 05:00, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
I suggest adding something to the following effect to MOS:SEEALSO:
It looks neater, and I see most see also sections linking to a section, don't use it yet, so it is worth promoting as style. Take the example:
Versus:
The "§" style is already in general use as part of {{ see also}}, and more see also sections are using it over time. edit:I think we should use the § sign for the same reason we don't use underscores in links. It looks neater, looks less technical, and also has more common usage in printed written texts than "#".16:44, 26 May 2017 (UTC) -- BurritoBazooka Talk Contribs 17:05, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Regarding MOS:SECTIONORDER—is the feeling that cleanup and dispute templates should go before or after {{Use [date style]}} and {{Use [language dialect]}}? I'm inclined to favor putting the "Use __" templates first so that they can be seen by editors, rather than be lost in the clutter.— DocWatson42 ( talk) 09:30, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
{{
italic title}}
, {{
use dmy dates}}
and similar down at the bottom, in the same place that {{
coord}}
goes - between navboxes and defaultsort. But then somebody comes along and moves it to the top, probably ignoring
WP:HNP whilst so doing. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk) 05:51, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
{{
Italic title}}
says "place this template in the article, normally at the very top" which, taken literally, contradicts
WP:HNP. It's also a special case of {{
display title}}
or the preferred magic word "DISPLAYTITLE", which are also not listed in
WP:ORDER. The notes on DISPLAYTITLE say "The title (the fullpagename) is changed using {{DISPLAYTITLE:namespace:pagename}} anywhere in the wikitext."
Pam
D 07:16, 11 August 2017 (UTC){{
Italic title}}
with {{
Use dmy dates}}
etc. at the top. Putting them at the bottom/end matter of the article (and I'm including {{
Coord}}
in this) means that they tend to get missed, and since they affect the entire article I feel that they should be where they can be easily found and so that editors can be informed of the expected "style". Specifically, in my opinion since {{
Coord}}
using the "title" parameter is displayed at the top of the article, unless there is a technical issue (e.g., in screen reading browsers for the blind) it should join the the other items at the top. But I realize that's (probably) another can of worms that I'm opening.—
DocWatson42 (
talk) 05:26, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
{{
Italic title}}
and {{
display title}}
.
Hawkeye7
(talk) 22:56, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
I was editing the King of the Gypsies article, changing the sub-headings size but I noticed that there is no visible difference between sub-headings 2,3 and 4, so the sub-heading 4 seems to be in the same category as the sub-heading 2 instead of making the reader know that sub-heading 4 is a subset of sub-heading 3 and not directly of sub-heading 1. Compare the changes in my edit with the previous version of the section of the article modified to have a more clear idea. I think sub-headings size should be discernible different to let know the reader that it is a subsection of a higher subheading/heading. Thinker78 ( talk) 17:45, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
According to the MOS:ORDER, every categories are placed at the bottom of an article before the stub template comes. However, the explanation does not seem to apply to the Category:Kvng RTH. Should I follow the guideline of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout, or conform to the category usage? -- Ykhwong ( talk) 00:18, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
[[Category:Kvng RTH]]
is placed after the text in the
History section, and not at the bottom of the page with the other categories. The category seems to exist purely to show which articles
Kvng (
talk ·
contribs) has worked on. It is clear that the category is being misused in more ways than one. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk) 09:45, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
From my talk page, based on a recent bold edit (and my revert) to the guideline:
Hi Izno,
I'm not sure what you meant by "Based on?" in your revert [1]. It should not normally be necessary to state that redirects are allowed in See Also section, because they always were.
However, occasionally I see people replacing redirects by piped or direct links (which is not only against WP:NOTBROKEN and WP:NOPIPE, but makes article maintenance much more difficult). Sometimes, redirects happen to point to different sections in the same target article, which is, of course, perfectly fine. However, if such redirects happen to be listed in a See also section, some editors seem to believe it would be okay to remove them simply because they are pointing to the same target article not realizing that by doing so they are destroying infrastructure (unless there are other reasons to remove such links as well). For as long as the listed terms in a See also section are relevant in the context of the source article (and therefore should be included in a See also list), the organization of the contents in the target article(s) is irrelevant, because redirects may become articles, contents may be moved around, articles may become merged etc. over time and it would be impractical to try and keep all the links in source articles in sync with such changes - after all, one of the purposes for redirects is to "abstract" contents from organization. Of course, this should be obvious to any experienced editor. Unfortunately, it still happens from time to time, and that's why I added that sentence.
-- Matthiaspaul ( talk) 00:52, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Matthiaspaul, if you can defend a link on a NOTBROKEN basis, then you should do so. (NOTBROKEN has limits, of course.)
I don't honestly agree with you about the rest of your concern--while it's true that redirects may become articles and that articles may get moved or merged or what not, I don't find that alone an overwhelming reason to let redirects to an article remain in the article's see also. If you have reasonable belief that a redirect to the self-same article will be expanded from its redirect state, then you should keep it and leave a note on the talk page (and possibly in the wiki text pointing to the talk page).
(On a somewhat converse point, WP:SEEALSO doesn't, and shouldn't, forbid redirects here.)
In the general though, we don't insert policy or guideline advice just to head off the dispute that you (specific) happen to have at any given time (and with guidance that is positive for your side of the dispute), but which we (general) happen to have at any given time. Is this a continuing point of contention that you are having with an editor? Multiple other editors? Are you the only one with this apparent issue? Are you sure your suggested change has a consensus, or might it be the case that you are the only one who thinks that this solution is the correct one? -- Izno ( talk) 01:40, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Noticed we had a few editwars over links removed from "See also" sections because the links were in the footer template (pointing here for validations). I think our rule on this needs updating as 50% plus of our readers dont see footers because of mobile view limitations. Think its best we remove the bold text as outdated that makes navigation harder for our mobile readers.-- Moxy ( talk) 15:23, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
As a general rule, the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes.
Is there any general consensus about how many subsections a section should have? I've read elsewhere that one subsection under a section is considered a bad practice. I bring this up because Black Panther (film) has a "Release" section with the first paragraph (before the "Marketing" subsection) having over 200 words and the "Marketing" subsection itself having over 1,200 words. It seems to be huge over-emphasis on a sub-topic that is technically more pre-release than release. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 13:18, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Short descriptions will be needed on all articles in main space. The history of this development can be followed by the truly masochistic in a series of discussions linked from Wikipedia:WikiProject Short descriptions. The short description is effectively an extension or annotation to the title intended to clarify the scope of the article and is considered essential by WMF as an aid to the reader. It will be displayed on mobile view as default and will probably be the first content from the article encountered by the mobile user. It may be displayed on desktop view by using a script, possibly later an integral gadget. It will be visible in source edit mode where it is placed in the code, and should be the first text below the title, before any hatnotes, as it an extension of the title.
I propose that the MOS/Layout be amended as follows to specify this position.
In "Order of article elements", change item
to read:
Cheers, · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 14:04, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
display:none
to the short description (whereas mobile view and app CSS will enable display). Because screen readers ignore text that has display:none
set, the short descriptions won't be heard via screen readers on the desktop version. --
RexxS (
talk) 02:37, 18 February 2018 (UTC)A Wikipedia:Short description is now required in all articles. See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Short descriptions for background and previous discussions. The related magic word has been partially implemented by WMF, and we now have a rather large job ahead to add short descriptions to articles. The short description, when made visible by opt-in gadget or user css, serves as an annotation to the title, and this is its intended purpose, and the purpose for which WMF Reading team intend to use it. To function as an annotation to the title, it should display immediately after the title, or as close as reasonably practicable to immediately after the title. To achieve this, we have been adding the template as the first line of the article. AWB currently automatically moves the {{ short description}} to below the hatnotes, where it is no longer obviously an annotation to the title.
Currently the default is that the short description is not visible in desktop read view, so will not inluence screen readers at all unless the user is logged in and has elected to make it visible. Disambiguation hatnotes and short descriptions should normally be complementary, or at worst repetitive, and then only if visible.
I propose a change to the standard order of an article, putting short description as the first item in the file, so that the AWB developers can amend the instructions to leave it there, and move it there when found somewhere else. as described above.
Is local consensus sufficient, or should I open an RfC at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) for this? · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 09:45, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Are we actually expecting the template to be displayed as a static block element? If I understand correctly, the normal use of the template will be only to call the SHORTDESC magic word. For this, the placement shouldn't matter, and it might actually be preferable to place it near the bottom (along with COORD and FA star templates and DEFAULTSORT declarations) to avoid being inadvertently overridden by later magic word calls. It has also been raised that placement at the top might make it more prone to vandalism (though I'm not quite sure about this). The only reason for placing the template at the top of the article appears to be so that users may tweak the CSS to have it show on the desktop. But for this, wouldn't it be better to use CSS to automatically position the description at the top of the page (similarly to coordinates) rather than relying on manual placement in the source? -- Paul_012 ( talk) 14:31, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
<h1 id="firstHeading" class="firstHeading" lang="en">Example</h1>
<div id="bodyContent" class="mw-body-content">
<div id="siteSub">From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia</div>
<div id="contentSub"></div>
<div id="jump-to-nav" class="mw-jump">Jump to: <a href="#column-one">navigation</a>, <a href="#searchInput">search</a></div>
<!-- start content -->
<h1>...</h1>
element. However, we have no means for injecting content at any point above the <!--start content-->
comment - we would need a MediaWiki change for that, hence
phab: (this is not the end of the world, we got a MediaWiki change made for topicons, but it took some time).{{
Short description}}
template displays its output at whatever point in the page the template is placed, we must consider accessibility. In my opinion, it is confirmation that the reader has reached the desired page, rather like hatnotes -
WP:HNP says "
Text-only browsers and
screen readers present the page sequentially. If a reader has reached the wrong page, they typically want to know that first." So the short desc and the hatnotes must be together; the only question is which goes first? I would say the short desc should be first of all. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk) 14:41, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
At Talk:Lesbian literature#See also, opinions are needed on whether or not the gay literature and bisexual literature links should be in the See also section of the Lesbian literature article. A permalink for the discussion is here. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 10:42, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
I have always seen it near the top of the page, but this guide says to put it at the bottom of the page. Where should it specifically go in the top of the page, and can we correct the MoS to reflect that? Kees08 (Talk) 08:14, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
{{
featured article}}
or indeed {{
good article}}
, those are normally placed by
Legobot (
talk ·
contribs) at the very top (
example) so getting them repositioned to the bottom would mean a bot coding amendment. If you have been following
User talk:Legobot and
User talk:Legoktm (as I have for over two years), you'll realise that it's not going to happen. Note that the position of {{
featured article}}
and {{
good article}}
are only relevant when editing the page: in the served HTML, the icons always end up in the same place, so their placement in the source is immaterial. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk) 11:22, 6 February 2018 (UTC)