![]() | This page 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. |
Many editors will have noted the large appearing weight (at least in the main skin) of ===h3===
relative to ===h2===
. For that reason I'm proposing a minor rewording to the Headings and sections section to make it more flexible, and more in line with
MOS:HEAD). Here is the text with changes in red:
Headings are hierarchical: you should start with a second-level heading (two equals signs on each side:
==Heading==
). In general, a subsection of a section should have a third-level subheading (===Subheading===
), and a subsection of one of these subsections should have a fourth-level subheading (====Subsubheading====
). In special cases, non-consecutive levels (for example===h2===
followed by===h4===
) can be used to improve the clarity of the layout. Between sections, there should be only a single blank line; multiple blank lines in the edit window create too much white space in the article.
Any comments? -- Klein zach 02:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Headers follow the standards set by the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), Wikipedia uses XHTML 1.0 Transitional after the Wikicode is parsed. Here is the verification: the intro doc [1] and the technical doc [2] to the specification. The technical doc is a little old (HTML 4), but it's still useful. WhatamIdoing, you're usually better at prose than I am; what do you think? ChyranandChloe ( talk) 06:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)Headings follow a six level hierarchy, starting at 1 and ending at 6. The level of the header is defined by the number of equal signs on either side of the title. Header 1 (
=Header 1=
) is automatically generated as the title of the document, and is rarely used within the body. Sections start at the second level (==Header 2==
), with subsequent subsections at the third level (===Header 3===
), and sub-subsection at the fourth level (====Header 4====
)—until six. Sections should be consecutive, a second level section should not immediately be followed by a fourth level section—unless special needs (such as WP:RPP) justify its usage. Between sections, there should be a single blank line; multiple blank lines in the edit window create too much white space in the article.
Headings follow a six level hierarchy, starting at 1 and ending at 6. The level of the header is defined by the number of equal signs on either side of the title. Header 1 (
=Header 1=
) is automatically generated as the title of the document, and is rarely used within the body. Sections start at the second level (==Header 2==
), with subsequent subsections at the third level (===Header 3===
), and sub-subsection at the fourth level (====Header 4====
)—until six. In general, sections should be consecutive—unless special needs (such as WP:RPP) or typographical considerations justify its usage. Between sections, there should be a single blank line; multiple blank lines in the edit window create too much white space in the article.
<h2 style="font-size:1.4em; font-weight:bolder; border:none">header</h2>
[3], on a global one you're looking at a proposal through the technical village page pump to modify
MediaWiki:Common.css; but I think you're straying from what the guideline is defined as: a "advisory" "documentation" of "actual good practices"(
WP:PG). It's a meeting ground to define what the average article should use. Special circumstances are solved individually. Using a h4 instead of h3 for typographical reasons doesn't bother me, the document tree was designed to be flexible anyway. About the prose, (1) "typographical considerations..." is redundant in my opinion, if the the typographical consideration wasn't for a special need, then it's probably overstepping the guideline; (2) "usage" to "use", it's not that important to me, but it's something we could do to make it sound less pretentious.
ChyranandChloe (
talk) 04:17, 12 June 2009 (UTC)Headings follow a six level hierarchy, starting at 1 and ending at 6. The level of the header is defined by the number of equal signs on either side of the title. Header 1 (
=Header 1=
) is automatically generated as the title of the document, and is rarely used within the body. Sections start at the second level (==Header 2==
), with subsequent subsections at the third level (===Header 3===
), and sub-subsection at the fourth level (====Header 4====
)—until six. In general, sections should be consecutive—unless special needs (such as WP:RPP) or other considerations justify its use. Between sections, there should be a single blank line; multiple blank lines in the edit window create too much white space in the article.
WhatamIdoing, usually you're the one doing the prose. Do you want to give it a spin? ChyranandChloe ( talk) 04:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)Headings follow a six level hierarchy, starting at 1 and ending at 6. The level of the header is defined by the number of equal signs on either side of the title. Header 1 (
=Header 1=
) is automatically generated as the title of the document, and is rarely used within the body. Sections start at the second level (==Header 2==
), with subsequent subsections at the third level (===Header 3===
), and sub-subsection at the fourth level (====Header 4====
)—until six. Sections should be consecutive, a second level section should not immediately be followed by a fourth level section—this issue is deferred to WP:ACCESS. Between sections, there should be a single blank line; multiple blank lines in the edit window create too much white space in the article.
Changed it to "the exact methodology" echoing what was done in the "Notes or Reference" section with WP:CITE. The assertion is qualified to "should" and much more general than the previous version. ChyranandChloe ( talk) 05:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)Headings follow a six level hierarchy, starting at 1 and ending at 6. The level of the header is defined by the number of equal signs on either side of the title. Header 1 (
=Header 1=
) is automatically generated as the title of the document, and is rarely used within the body. Sections start at the second level (==Header 2==
), with subsequent subsections at the third level (===Header 3===
), and sub-subsection at the fourth level (====Header 4====
)—until six. Sections should be consecutive such that it does not skip levels from sections to sub-subsections, the exact methodology is deferred to WP:ACCESS. Between sections, there should be a single blank line; multiple blank lines in the edit window create too much white space in the article.
Headings follow a six level hierarchy, starting at 1 and ending at 6. The level of the header is defined by the number of equal signs on either side of the title. Header 1 (
=Header 1=
) is automatically generated as the title of the document, and is rarely used within the body. Sections start at the second level (==Header 2==
), with subsequent subsections at the third level (===Header 3===
), and sub-subsection at the fourth level (====Header 4====
)—until six. Sections should be consecutive such that it does not skip levels from sections to sub-subsections, the exact methodology is deferred to WP:ACCESS. [1] Between sections, there should be a single blank line; multiple blank lines in the edit window create too much white space in the article.
And in the Footnotes... For example, skipping header levels, such as jumping from ==Header 2==
to ====Header 4====
without ===Header 3===
in the middle, violates
Wikipedia:Accessibility—as it reduces usability for readers on screen readers who use heading levels to navigate pages.
I've reworded the explanatory notes. ChyranandChloe ( talk) 06:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
I was impressed with the clarity and brevity at Wikipedia:Writing_better_articles#Headings, and I've tried to emulate that without modifying the meaning. I realize that I'm coming late into a long-standing discussion and I don't mean to be rude -- although I made the changes directly to the article, I mean them as suggestions. Agradman appreciates civility/ makes occasional mistakes 05:50, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
I would like to a propose some clarifications the "Standard Appendices" section (they're here.) These revisions are purely stylistic: information has been moved, but not removed (except occasionally when information was more appropriately presented at a wikilink). I invite you to modify my version above before implementing all or some of the proposals. Thanks. Agradman ( talk) 21:22, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
I disagree with the changing of "Websites and online publications are normally listed in the "External links" section instead of in this section," to "It is usually preferable to present websites and online publications in the "External links" section," I actually disagree with the former, but the latter is even worse as it is expressing a POV that not all agree with.-- PBS ( talk) 10:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
The diffs page from my recent edit makes my changes seem much more drastic than they really were. I implemented only a portion of what I proposed above -- i.e. only the changes that I thought would be least controversial, and the ones which would interfere least with your ongoing discussion at "Notes and References." In addition, this is my first time editing a style guideline -- I know that edits must "generally reflect consensus" but I'm not sure how that works in practice -- please let me know if I've handled this incorrectly. Agradman ( talk) 03:22, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
This page is getting out of control, creepy, and basics are being lost in a lot of excess markup. I was going to revert a few days back, but there seem to be a few good changes in there. Let's get back to basics, and keep it simple: I don't support these recent changes. Some sort of revert is needed, not sure how far. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 00:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Current
“ | Sections and subsections are introduced by headers. Very short or very long sections and subsections in an article look cluttered and inhibits the flow of the prose. These headings clarify articles by breaking up text, organizing content, and populating the table of contents that users can choose to view (the default) or not to view (by changing their Preferences).
Headings follow a six level hierarchy, starting at 1 and ending at 6. The level of the header is defined by the number of equal signs on either side of the title. Header 1 ( If the order in which sections should appear in a longer article is unclear, alphabetical or chronological order can be helpful. Alphabetical order is especially useful when sections are divided on the basis of criteria such as country or state. |
” |
Proposed
“ | Headers break an article into coherent sections. They are ranked hierarchically: headers of increasing rank appear with diminishing font size in the body text and with increasing indentation in the table of contents.
Usage: A header of a given rank is generated by surrounding text with a corresponding number of equals signs (i.e. =level 1 header= ==level 2 header==, etc., ending at level six). The top of the hierarchy is generally reserved for "level 2 headers," since the "level 1 header" uses the same font size as the article's title. Precede headers with a single blank line. When adding sub-headers, rank them consecutively with the header they appear under, per WP:ACCESS. [3] |
” |
Agradman, I understand what you're doing is clarifying the prose, but you're removing the prose from its original wording. Brevity is certainly an appreciable quality. However you are changing the original intent. I chose the specific wording in my proposal for a reason. Your changes are no longer stylistic. Under WP:CON I am challenging your edit, reverting it to a stable version that has last achieved consensus. [4] See WP:MOSBETTER is emulating us when they write their guideline, we can't choose a reduction in reasons or description because of this. I expect more from you if you're getting into this. The proposal from the last change is copied to above to make it easier to see what we're moving to. ChyranandChloe ( talk) 06:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) Let's break it down:
The prose has to be on the dot. The first two paragraphs, in my opinion, are well written. Anymore of a reduction and it would be loosing the reasons behind it. It's the third paragraph that seems ambiguous. It's describing a concept WP:SAL promotes, for articles such as List of additives in cigarettes usually used inconjunction with Template:CompactTOC8. If you want to work on that, research it out and annotate what each clause is suppose to convey. This isn't a mandate. I don't believe in telling you what you should do. But it helps. Frustration from a lack of articulation, destroys a proposal. There are over five archives of this. I think, Agradman, that you've got something going; but slow down. You won't be unappreciated if you do this. Not a lot people say this, but your analysis is worthwhile. I hope this helps. By the way, it's rude that it takes you nine edits to get your post right, it tells me you didn't think it all the way through the first time, and expecting us to make it work for you.
Kleinzach, consensus is founded on the reasons behind a proposal, judged objectively on its own merits, and talked about civilly. You've failed the last two, and after this post [5], I don't want to help you anymore. Getting your proposal through wasn't easy. WhatamIdoing, PBS, and I could have just said: no; proposed no further compromise and the discussion would have been halted as no consensus. The first question I always ask before I comment on a proposal: is consensus even possible? I didn't rewrite the proposal three times, three different versions, if your first post was as transgressed as your last. "Challenging" is a courtesy that says "I'll play the one asking for the change", it defers my opinion to you. The contrary would have been "done without consensus": you're the one asking for change, you are bringing down guideline stability, get in line and propose your changes like everyone else. ChyranandChloe ( talk) 06:05, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Here are some possible changes to consider for the existing text, which is clearly imperfect:
Overall, I think that the second paragraph under 'proposed' is better than the current text, although there are a few details (e.g., the last sentence of current text) that will need to be added. It might also be worth adding an explanation of the {{ -}} template, since that's what's usually driving the unnecessary blank lines. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 00:03, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree with your six points. However I can only tie point one and five to a direct edit to the prose. I mean the current prose seems to be compatible with most of your points. How do you want to re-assemble it? ChyranandChloe ( talk) 01:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
In point four. When I wrote the text, I had to qualify the assertion. "never" would create the logical fallacy dicto simpliciter. Read literally, "never" implies that editors never make the mistake and the header level has never appeared in the body. However, I think I get what you're getting at, how does "should not be used in the body" sound?
I like point six, its an improvement. However, "is unclear" doesn't seem articulate. When is it "unclear"? Also, "logical system" seems ambiguous: it seems to imply that if an article were not using a logical arrangement (alphabetical, chrono, geo...), it would be illogical. To my understanding, when an article uses an alphabetical, chronological, or geographic arrangement—it's a list, or it's in some way a type of list. This allows us to defer a portion of the text to WP:LIST and WP:SAL. This my question: what are you trying to apply this to? For example, are you trying to apply this clause to something like List of sovereign states, the section "Geographical frequency" in Epidemiology of autism, or both? ChyranandChloe ( talk) 03:55, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
I've come here to ask if anyone overseeing this part of the WP:MOS could offer their expertise in a discussion going on at Talk:Canadian Forces casualties in Afghanistan#Reference list continued. It is regarding the exercise of those policies that guide the order of appendicies at the bottom of an article. Some extra input would be appreciated. Cheers. -- Miesianiacal ( talk) 03:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Is there a guideline for formatting a "see also" link when it's not at the beginning of a section, like so:
-- NE2 09:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
“ | Hyperlinks to other Wikimedia projects (except Wiktionary and Wikisource) should generally not appear outside this section (for details, see Wikipedia:External links). | ” |
Unfortunately, Wikipedia:External links does not currently say where Wiktionary and Wikisource links should go, so I am left wondering—what is the appropriate place for them? DocWatson42 ( talk) 09:04, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Rewritten the prose for greater brevity. [9] For example, if the list is in "in diminishing order of popularity" then the first listed should logically be "the most frequent choice". Don't need to reiterate it. "Several alternate titles ("Sources", "Citations", "Bibliography") may also be used, although each is problematic" seems cumbersome, used "depreciated but not prohibited". What do you guys think? ChyranandChloe ( talk) 04:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
"References" is the most common choice, but any title that indicates the contents is acceptable. Other editors use "Notes", "Footnotes", "Sources", "Citations", "Bibliography", or "Works cited" (in diminishing order of popularity). Some of these are deprecated (but not prohibited): "Sources" may be confused with source code...
I have reverted the recent recent changes, because although the wording is not elegant it is accurate, if there are citations then they are never in my experience never placed in a section called Notes without a References section also existing. --
PBS (
talk) 13:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
My preference is for this guideline to specify the use of "Notes", "References" or "Notes followed by References" and drop the other alternatives. The reason is uniformity. It is important to me that readers are presented the same pattern in any article they encounter. One of the arguments above is that drawing a line will result in edit warring. In my opinion, uniformity ranks in importance somewhat above preventing hypothetical misbehavior. I would like to review previous discussions that defend the alternate naming schemes. Is there a summary someone can direct me to? ✤ JonHarder talk 13:05, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
— Ω ( talk) 22:34, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
— Ω ( talk) 18:55, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
This goes back to the study back in May. There will be articles that do not follow standards, but understand that they are few in number; so few, they're really becoming outliers. That's why I'm sticking the the four listed above. So besides "Notes" and "Footnotes" ("Notes" is about seven times more prevalent than "Footnotes"). There are really only two major systems: (1) Notes/References, (2) References/Bibliography. This excludes explanatory notes, which can only reasonably regresses back to Notes/References/Bibliography if the article needs short/full citations, and Notes/References if the article uses only full citations. This contradicts one of "Bibliography"'s definition as "a list of printed works by the subject of a biography", but the numbers seem to suggest otherwise. Going through the data and possibilities: this is what I've got. Subjectively and politically, and asking the question: is consensus possible? I don't think so, doubt people will forfeit pride for numbers. I'm not going to ask what you guys think. Know the answer, read it before. My central question is: what is your objective analysis? ChyranandChloe ( talk) 01:44, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
— Ω ( talk) 13:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Still brain storming. I believe that there's a better way than what the analysis provided. Seen a lot of new systems. Three examples, (1) in large list articles McGregor proposed a system to place references at the foot of a table, rationale's solid; [14] (2) since short and full references are strongly related, I actually proposed a system to have them subsectioned ( archive 3, example); and (3) ask PBS, military history is way out there ;). Think long term and productivity. After a RFC-level consensus, a WP:BAG approval; bot everything.
There are a lot of methods, this prevents us from being prescriptive. "leave an opening" is ambiguous. I agree with WhatamIdoing's approach, be informative. In that, it's about rewriting the analysis for the guideline. Now, about the problems that have come up, probably will, and what needs kept in check. After POV, MOS is probably number two in arbitration cases. [15] [16] Consensus is hard, for articles this usually entails verifiability. Don't always have that. Without it, we usually end up like POV-pushers. There is opportunity, from which we answer whether consensus works. However, this usually entails politics. The word has come to have a negative connotation, [17] but when we put it in that context: it feels like, in my opinion, we're ignoring the issue. By its denotative definition, politics is the process we need to get there. Irksome? Yeah. Wrote a bit about it, WP:PROCESS. My central question, how do you want to rewrite the section "Notes" and "References" to reflect what is said above? ChyranandChloe ( talk) 00:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
— Ω ( talk) 03:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
user:Pncpa has just rewritten the first part of this guide as an article. Mercurywoodrose ( talk) 19:38, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
It looks like this section just detiorated over time from a series of well-intended edits; I couldn't find any meaningful discussion or reason for the deterioration and deletion of long-standing text, so I restored the long-standing content from mid-June. [18] [19] SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 04:48, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
This subject has been discussed at Talk:Sustainability. As this is a fairly general topic for an article, the Further reading section has become overly long. Should some guidance be added to the FURTHER section in order to put limits on how long the list can become, or has this already been discussed (I couldn't find it in the archive though).— Teahot ( talk) 18:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone object to the text becoming (red text is the change)?:
Obviously some guidance as to what is reasonable may be needed, but this is true of the other WP help available.— Teahot ( talk) 11:31, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
This page seems very susceptible to new editors trying to create articles on totally irrelevant topics, so with WP:AGF let's assume that there is some easy wrong route whereby people end up here when trying to create a first article. Two questions: (a) can anyone see what that route is, and can it be amended? (b) would it be useful to (ask an admin to) create a WP:Editnotice (I only learned about them today) so that anyone starting to edit the page gets a helpful message on the lines of "This article is about how to set out a WP article. If you need help in creating a new WP article, please see Wikipedia:New contributors' help page", or something on those lines? No other pages I watchlist seem to get as many strange edits as this page - things like today's essay and the one mentioned above. PamD ( talk) 14:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Ah, sorry for ambiguity: when I said "This page" I meant the WP:Layout page, rather than this talk page! Thanks for your effort, but I don't think it hits the right target. PamD ( talk) 06:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
I see it's just happened again - I'm intrigued as to how these newby editors are all falling onto WP:Layout rather than other project pages! Any theories? PamD ( talk) 11:51, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Your input will be appreciated in the discussion/proposal at Wikipedia_talk:Stub#Lines_before_stub_template. Debresser ( talk) 22:05, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Should it be stated that image galleries at the end of an article should go before all other end material, i.e. "see also", refs, etc.? » Swpb τ • ¢ 09:48, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Relevant help pages: WP:GALLERY, and WP:IG. "Articles consisting entirely or primarily of galleries are discouraged", but galleries can be useful if used judiciously. Readers are generally not familiar with the {{ commons}} use, and will not find the (often huge and unedited) collections there. Providing an edited gallery at the end of an article is highly informative (if the images can't be fit within the article in a better way). Eg 1750-1795 in fashion, or the one under discussion at Ponte Vecchio (which needs to be trimmed a bit, but not too much). HTH. -- Quiddity ( talk) 19:45, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
When viewed in Internet Explorer there is a huge white space at the top of the page. Not visible in Firefox. Can someone fix? I'm helpless with stuff like this. Didn't notice it until a new editor pointed it out, and the page has been like this for weeks. Thanks. -- JohnnyB256 ( talk) 17:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
how hacker work as? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.97.210.114 ( talk) 06:07, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
The page says: " InterWikimedia links to other projects (except Wiktionary and Wikisource) should generally not appear outside this section". In practice this seems widely ignored. Especially in short articles where there are no images, wikionary links or wikisource ones are often placed as a sort of lead picture, which I don't like. But in articles where text, images etc are very relevant - ones on literature, music or art - they are often placed at "See also", or "References", which seems sensible to me. In most visual arts articles the commons category is a great deal more relevant than most "see also"s and if there are many notes and references it is a pity to have it stranded right at the end. It often fits very neatly, both visually and logically, into "see also" in particular. Is it time to relax this wording, especially for articles where the link is centrally relevant? Johnbod ( talk) 17:01, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
I have gone in a circle in the project's manual of style looking for a good description of the various footer titles and optimal content for each choice of title. The section here that best describes the situation refers only to "popularity". I hope to be either directed to a more developed source of information on Wikipedia, or encourage the writing of one. I also hope that I have uncovered what could be considered to be a loop between Wikipedia:Layout#Notes_and_References and Wikipedia:Footnotes#How_to_use. Also WP:references seems to avoid the subtopic I seek to understand, "Footer titles and contents", and references the other two.
I could reverse engineer the Jane Austin article? CpiralCpiral 19:25, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Discussions are golden. You have provided guidance and wealth, and pointed me the places to get more. Thank you both for your fine displays of style and example. Bye for now. CpiralCpiral 04:35, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
The layout does not relate to the way schools are organized in karachi. There are too many categories. To those familiar with the topic, just a single long list will do nicely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Civilizationsschool ( talk • contribs) 15:06, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
I just noticed the newly-created Template:Infobox_outlines. This infobox contains links to categories, portals, and article. (It previously also included a link to a Wikipedia essay, but I've removed that.) In my view, this violates WP:LAYOUT, which specifically indicates that portals should be place in the See Also section. I'm considering nominating this for deletion, but first wanted to see the opinions of those who more closely follow this guideline. Karanacs ( talk) 14:51, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Sorry for not replying sooner, busy. The statement in the guideline is a qualified as "usually", and is not a prescription that "specifically indicates that portals should be placed in the See Also". There's a difference in both the language and the spirit. It's not a violation. Categories as linkable text (different from footers) are not uncommon in infoboxes concerning outlines, although they are often less conspicuous than the template being discussed (e.g. the "Part of a series on" in {{ Islam}}, {{ Smoking}}, {{ Atmospheric sciences}}). Please explain "your view". ChyranandChloe ( talk) 05:16, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
We don't seem to have a more detailed guide on "Further reading" sections except for the brief section that is present here in this article. This says that "Further reading" sections are functional equivalents of "External links" sections, for which we have well-defined eligibility requirements ( WP:ELNO).
Given the current rise in vanity presses such as Lulu.com (which I cannot link to, thanks to the spam filter, but here are publications from this press in google books) and BookSurge ( google books), should we think about adding a note somewhere that self-published books/vanity press publications are not generally welcome additions to "Further reading" sections?
( This is what prompted my concern.) -- JN 466 13:03, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
I get the impression that the rule of "See also" could be improved.
Extract 1: "A reasonable number of relevant links that would be in the body of a hypothetical perfect article are suitable to add to the "See also" appendix of a less developed one."
Extract 2: "Links already integrated into the body of the text are generally not repeated in a "See also" section,"
Extract 3: "and navigation boxes at bottom of articles may substitute for many links (see bottom of Pathology for example)."
These are just suggestions (my 20 cents?). Thanks -- Nabeth ( talk) 21:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
I am seeing allot of BIG Further reading sections such as this (over half the article). They are sometimes put in under "Reference" but seem to amount ot the same thing. The guidance reasonable number seems pretty common sense but should it be stated more clearly and maybe include "Reference" sections? Is there a cleanup tag for Further reading or Reference sections that have to be reduced? Fountains of Bryn Mawr ( talk) 16:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
The WP:FOOTERS guideline currently states:
Order of optional appendices: [4]
- Works or Publications or Bibliography
- See also
- Notes and/or References
- Further reading
- External links (It is especially important that this section appears last [5])
Order of optional footers:
- Succession boxes and navigational templates (footer navboxes)
- Categories
- Stub templates (the first stub template should be preceded by two blank lines)
- Interlanguage links
The following is also noted in
Perennial Proposals:
# Proposal: The standard appendices at the end of an article (e.g., See also, Notes, References, Further reading, and External links) should be changed to the system preferred by the editor/a particular professional field/the editor's school. These proposals may involve changing the names of the sections (e.g., changing References to Sources or Bibliography), changing the order of the sections (e.g., putting External links first, or References last), or changing the formatting (e.g., long lists of references should be hidden in a scrolling box).
- Reasons for previous rejection: Policies and guidelines document "actual good practices". Most proposals fail to demonstrate that their proposed practice is an emerging, sustainable alternative to the current de facto method. These guidelines only seek to document the status quo and not to change it. The See also precedes the References, Further reading, and External links; the reason for the existing order follows a logical progression from on-wiki to off-wiki information.
Do all the appendices necessarily precede all the optional footers? It seems to me that the "logical progression from on-wiki to off-wiki information" is interrupted somewhat if succession boxes with wikilinks go after the External links. There is also another issue with this practice: at least one well-meaning editor has been moving succession boxes to the end of the article after the "external links" section, and in some cases this is a very confusing move. For example, in articles on pop songs, chart succession boxes have previously been included in the "charts" section, which makes sense. In cases where more than version of the song has been a hit, succession boxes have been included in the "charts" section belonging to the relevant cover version(s) where applicable. However, when this information is moved to the end of the article, it is no longer clear which succession table refers to which version. Example: Take on Me, which was assessed as a good article with the succession boxes in the relevant sections, as is the norm with this type of article. I imagine this situation was unanticipated when the Footers guideline was written.
I propose that, in order to minimise the potential for confusion, the following wording should be added to WP:FOOTERS:
If a succession box refers to a specific section of an article, it should be inserted at the end of that section.
Does that sound OK? Contains Mild Peril ( talk) 20:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll give it a mention there. I don't think there's anything in the template itself which makes it inherently more suitable for the end of the article rather than the end of the section: it's been normal practice to use these boxes at the end of sections as I described for some time and I'm not aware of any problems with this. Contains Mild Peril ( talk) 22:13, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
The whole artcle is based on self publicity . Shame Sabria Jawher —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.120.41.24 ( talk) 21:02, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
There is a an RFC at Template talk:Refimprove. It would be helpful to include a link to a commercial search engine in the template. But this means that there will be external links outside the "External links" section in hundreds of articles. Do the benefits outweigh the drawbacks? See Template talk:Refimprove#RFC: Should a link to a commercial search engine be included in the template Refimprove? -- PBS ( talk) 17:42, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
I started a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research#See_also_and_categories regarding how see also and categories intersect with NOR and POV and how problematic that may or may not be relative to NOR and POV in the article body, if anyone would like to join. Some prior discussions of See also occurred at Wikipedia_talk:Layout/Archive_1#See_also_after_references, Wikipedia_talk:Layout/Archive_2#See_also, Wikipedia_talk:Layout/Archive_3#Length_of_See_Also, Wikipedia_talk:Layout/Archive_4#See_also_suggestion, Wikipedia_talk:Layout/Archive_5#See_also, Wikipedia_talk:Layout/Archive_6#See_also. Шизомби ( talk) 18:15, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Is there any problem with nested see alsos? If for example there were some broad topic of relevance and other subtopics?
Like for Krampus to have the see also section read in relevant part:
I would guess this would be fine, but I can't recall if I've seen it done. Шизомби ( talk) 16:16, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
User:Belovedeagle, [42] User:Graham87, [43] User:Eagle4000, [44] User:Dank, [45] User:MrKIA11, [46] User:Finell, [47] and myself [48]—have all made minor stylistic changes to the article within the past week. The overall change [49] isn't major, although the last edit by Finell introduced errors into the code example in "Links". Please be careful. Death by a thousand small cuts is a concern. Leaving a short message so that changes can be traced would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. ChyranandChloe ( talk) 07:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
What is a watcher? It can count to seven edits. History has a number of watchers. The History page has a Number of watchers process activation link. It is the third of four external tools shown in sequence. Sorry, I could not resist the flow of what I had experienced while satisfying my wondering, confirming what kind of post this was. — Cpiral Cpiral 02:03, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
I propose a link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Section since going here, I did not find the information I was looking for (use of __NOTOC__). —Preceding unsigned comment added by MI6 ( talk • contribs) 08:37, 8 December 2009
The discussion under this heading is unclear; having read the first paragraph, I was left wondering:
Accordingly, I propose that the material under this heading be divided and discussed under two separate headings, viz. "References" and "Notes". Before acting on this proposal, I'd like any feedback you may have.
yoyo ( talk) 12:59, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Template:for example says that we say to put for example templates at the head of a section. We don't. It should go at the end of a section. Yes? — Cpiral Cpiral 19:56, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Template {{ style wide}} is like for example, but with a different documentation error that could have unintended consequences: "Place this template at the end of pages relevant to the Manual of Style." That's it. A command from whom, and for what purpose? Who regulates/polices Wikipedia templates? The Brits could be planning to change Norté American spellings! — Cpiral Cpiral 22:04, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
There are a few more such as {{ infobox}}, {{ Portal}}, success boxes—but I think you'd be more interested in templates that don't follow a well known standard. I don't know if I should be saying this, but I have been a bit associated with a couple non-standard templates. "Part of a series" such as {{ Islam}}, {{ Smoking}}, {{ Atmospheric sciences}}, and {{ Style}} are infobox-like, but because of their very specific application an their relative rarity, editors innovate instead. I'll just tell you right now, I do have a preference towards collapsible sort: think fixed height, static part of the series templates are backward. There are more examples, each with its own story. If you want I can tell you the stories of {{ Gallery}}, {{ Cnote2}}, {{ FAQ row}}, and {{ Outline header}}.
There are some controversies, for example some editors disapprove of infoboxes, and their argument is that they're un-needed or controlled by a small group of editors ( Jane Austen is a good example). Despite this, templates are usually much quieter since the number of editors who understand templates well enough to write, modify, and deploy them are very few in number than those who just know how to hit the edit button. There's also innovation in templates. The big thing in the infobox world is microformats, which is a type of meta-data, for example if you enter the population of a city into an infobox, the search engine will interpret it as, well, the population of the city rather than some number. I don't do infoboxes though, friend does, talk to Dudemanfellabra. Pretzels does the Signpost. My job, well, probably has an explanation of its own. ChyranandChloe ( talk) 05:47, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
==Header 2==
to ====Header 4====
without ===Header 3===
in the middle, violates
Wikipedia:Accessibility as it reduces usability for readers on screen readers who use heading levels to navigate pages.
==Header 2==
to ====Header 4====
without ===Header 3===
in the middle, violates
Wikipedia:Accessibility as it reduces usability for readers on screen readers who use heading levels to navigate pages.
==Header 2==
to ====Header 4====
without ===Header 3===
in the middle, violates
Wikipedia:Accessibility as it reduces usability for readers on screen readers who use heading levels to navigate pages.
![]() | This page 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. |
Many editors will have noted the large appearing weight (at least in the main skin) of ===h3===
relative to ===h2===
. For that reason I'm proposing a minor rewording to the Headings and sections section to make it more flexible, and more in line with
MOS:HEAD). Here is the text with changes in red:
Headings are hierarchical: you should start with a second-level heading (two equals signs on each side:
==Heading==
). In general, a subsection of a section should have a third-level subheading (===Subheading===
), and a subsection of one of these subsections should have a fourth-level subheading (====Subsubheading====
). In special cases, non-consecutive levels (for example===h2===
followed by===h4===
) can be used to improve the clarity of the layout. Between sections, there should be only a single blank line; multiple blank lines in the edit window create too much white space in the article.
Any comments? -- Klein zach 02:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Headers follow the standards set by the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), Wikipedia uses XHTML 1.0 Transitional after the Wikicode is parsed. Here is the verification: the intro doc [1] and the technical doc [2] to the specification. The technical doc is a little old (HTML 4), but it's still useful. WhatamIdoing, you're usually better at prose than I am; what do you think? ChyranandChloe ( talk) 06:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)Headings follow a six level hierarchy, starting at 1 and ending at 6. The level of the header is defined by the number of equal signs on either side of the title. Header 1 (
=Header 1=
) is automatically generated as the title of the document, and is rarely used within the body. Sections start at the second level (==Header 2==
), with subsequent subsections at the third level (===Header 3===
), and sub-subsection at the fourth level (====Header 4====
)—until six. Sections should be consecutive, a second level section should not immediately be followed by a fourth level section—unless special needs (such as WP:RPP) justify its usage. Between sections, there should be a single blank line; multiple blank lines in the edit window create too much white space in the article.
Headings follow a six level hierarchy, starting at 1 and ending at 6. The level of the header is defined by the number of equal signs on either side of the title. Header 1 (
=Header 1=
) is automatically generated as the title of the document, and is rarely used within the body. Sections start at the second level (==Header 2==
), with subsequent subsections at the third level (===Header 3===
), and sub-subsection at the fourth level (====Header 4====
)—until six. In general, sections should be consecutive—unless special needs (such as WP:RPP) or typographical considerations justify its usage. Between sections, there should be a single blank line; multiple blank lines in the edit window create too much white space in the article.
<h2 style="font-size:1.4em; font-weight:bolder; border:none">header</h2>
[3], on a global one you're looking at a proposal through the technical village page pump to modify
MediaWiki:Common.css; but I think you're straying from what the guideline is defined as: a "advisory" "documentation" of "actual good practices"(
WP:PG). It's a meeting ground to define what the average article should use. Special circumstances are solved individually. Using a h4 instead of h3 for typographical reasons doesn't bother me, the document tree was designed to be flexible anyway. About the prose, (1) "typographical considerations..." is redundant in my opinion, if the the typographical consideration wasn't for a special need, then it's probably overstepping the guideline; (2) "usage" to "use", it's not that important to me, but it's something we could do to make it sound less pretentious.
ChyranandChloe (
talk) 04:17, 12 June 2009 (UTC)Headings follow a six level hierarchy, starting at 1 and ending at 6. The level of the header is defined by the number of equal signs on either side of the title. Header 1 (
=Header 1=
) is automatically generated as the title of the document, and is rarely used within the body. Sections start at the second level (==Header 2==
), with subsequent subsections at the third level (===Header 3===
), and sub-subsection at the fourth level (====Header 4====
)—until six. In general, sections should be consecutive—unless special needs (such as WP:RPP) or other considerations justify its use. Between sections, there should be a single blank line; multiple blank lines in the edit window create too much white space in the article.
WhatamIdoing, usually you're the one doing the prose. Do you want to give it a spin? ChyranandChloe ( talk) 04:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)Headings follow a six level hierarchy, starting at 1 and ending at 6. The level of the header is defined by the number of equal signs on either side of the title. Header 1 (
=Header 1=
) is automatically generated as the title of the document, and is rarely used within the body. Sections start at the second level (==Header 2==
), with subsequent subsections at the third level (===Header 3===
), and sub-subsection at the fourth level (====Header 4====
)—until six. Sections should be consecutive, a second level section should not immediately be followed by a fourth level section—this issue is deferred to WP:ACCESS. Between sections, there should be a single blank line; multiple blank lines in the edit window create too much white space in the article.
Changed it to "the exact methodology" echoing what was done in the "Notes or Reference" section with WP:CITE. The assertion is qualified to "should" and much more general than the previous version. ChyranandChloe ( talk) 05:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)Headings follow a six level hierarchy, starting at 1 and ending at 6. The level of the header is defined by the number of equal signs on either side of the title. Header 1 (
=Header 1=
) is automatically generated as the title of the document, and is rarely used within the body. Sections start at the second level (==Header 2==
), with subsequent subsections at the third level (===Header 3===
), and sub-subsection at the fourth level (====Header 4====
)—until six. Sections should be consecutive such that it does not skip levels from sections to sub-subsections, the exact methodology is deferred to WP:ACCESS. Between sections, there should be a single blank line; multiple blank lines in the edit window create too much white space in the article.
Headings follow a six level hierarchy, starting at 1 and ending at 6. The level of the header is defined by the number of equal signs on either side of the title. Header 1 (
=Header 1=
) is automatically generated as the title of the document, and is rarely used within the body. Sections start at the second level (==Header 2==
), with subsequent subsections at the third level (===Header 3===
), and sub-subsection at the fourth level (====Header 4====
)—until six. Sections should be consecutive such that it does not skip levels from sections to sub-subsections, the exact methodology is deferred to WP:ACCESS. [1] Between sections, there should be a single blank line; multiple blank lines in the edit window create too much white space in the article.
And in the Footnotes... For example, skipping header levels, such as jumping from ==Header 2==
to ====Header 4====
without ===Header 3===
in the middle, violates
Wikipedia:Accessibility—as it reduces usability for readers on screen readers who use heading levels to navigate pages.
I've reworded the explanatory notes. ChyranandChloe ( talk) 06:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
I was impressed with the clarity and brevity at Wikipedia:Writing_better_articles#Headings, and I've tried to emulate that without modifying the meaning. I realize that I'm coming late into a long-standing discussion and I don't mean to be rude -- although I made the changes directly to the article, I mean them as suggestions. Agradman appreciates civility/ makes occasional mistakes 05:50, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
I would like to a propose some clarifications the "Standard Appendices" section (they're here.) These revisions are purely stylistic: information has been moved, but not removed (except occasionally when information was more appropriately presented at a wikilink). I invite you to modify my version above before implementing all or some of the proposals. Thanks. Agradman ( talk) 21:22, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
I disagree with the changing of "Websites and online publications are normally listed in the "External links" section instead of in this section," to "It is usually preferable to present websites and online publications in the "External links" section," I actually disagree with the former, but the latter is even worse as it is expressing a POV that not all agree with.-- PBS ( talk) 10:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
The diffs page from my recent edit makes my changes seem much more drastic than they really were. I implemented only a portion of what I proposed above -- i.e. only the changes that I thought would be least controversial, and the ones which would interfere least with your ongoing discussion at "Notes and References." In addition, this is my first time editing a style guideline -- I know that edits must "generally reflect consensus" but I'm not sure how that works in practice -- please let me know if I've handled this incorrectly. Agradman ( talk) 03:22, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
This page is getting out of control, creepy, and basics are being lost in a lot of excess markup. I was going to revert a few days back, but there seem to be a few good changes in there. Let's get back to basics, and keep it simple: I don't support these recent changes. Some sort of revert is needed, not sure how far. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 00:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Current
“ | Sections and subsections are introduced by headers. Very short or very long sections and subsections in an article look cluttered and inhibits the flow of the prose. These headings clarify articles by breaking up text, organizing content, and populating the table of contents that users can choose to view (the default) or not to view (by changing their Preferences).
Headings follow a six level hierarchy, starting at 1 and ending at 6. The level of the header is defined by the number of equal signs on either side of the title. Header 1 ( If the order in which sections should appear in a longer article is unclear, alphabetical or chronological order can be helpful. Alphabetical order is especially useful when sections are divided on the basis of criteria such as country or state. |
” |
Proposed
“ | Headers break an article into coherent sections. They are ranked hierarchically: headers of increasing rank appear with diminishing font size in the body text and with increasing indentation in the table of contents.
Usage: A header of a given rank is generated by surrounding text with a corresponding number of equals signs (i.e. =level 1 header= ==level 2 header==, etc., ending at level six). The top of the hierarchy is generally reserved for "level 2 headers," since the "level 1 header" uses the same font size as the article's title. Precede headers with a single blank line. When adding sub-headers, rank them consecutively with the header they appear under, per WP:ACCESS. [3] |
” |
Agradman, I understand what you're doing is clarifying the prose, but you're removing the prose from its original wording. Brevity is certainly an appreciable quality. However you are changing the original intent. I chose the specific wording in my proposal for a reason. Your changes are no longer stylistic. Under WP:CON I am challenging your edit, reverting it to a stable version that has last achieved consensus. [4] See WP:MOSBETTER is emulating us when they write their guideline, we can't choose a reduction in reasons or description because of this. I expect more from you if you're getting into this. The proposal from the last change is copied to above to make it easier to see what we're moving to. ChyranandChloe ( talk) 06:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) Let's break it down:
The prose has to be on the dot. The first two paragraphs, in my opinion, are well written. Anymore of a reduction and it would be loosing the reasons behind it. It's the third paragraph that seems ambiguous. It's describing a concept WP:SAL promotes, for articles such as List of additives in cigarettes usually used inconjunction with Template:CompactTOC8. If you want to work on that, research it out and annotate what each clause is suppose to convey. This isn't a mandate. I don't believe in telling you what you should do. But it helps. Frustration from a lack of articulation, destroys a proposal. There are over five archives of this. I think, Agradman, that you've got something going; but slow down. You won't be unappreciated if you do this. Not a lot people say this, but your analysis is worthwhile. I hope this helps. By the way, it's rude that it takes you nine edits to get your post right, it tells me you didn't think it all the way through the first time, and expecting us to make it work for you.
Kleinzach, consensus is founded on the reasons behind a proposal, judged objectively on its own merits, and talked about civilly. You've failed the last two, and after this post [5], I don't want to help you anymore. Getting your proposal through wasn't easy. WhatamIdoing, PBS, and I could have just said: no; proposed no further compromise and the discussion would have been halted as no consensus. The first question I always ask before I comment on a proposal: is consensus even possible? I didn't rewrite the proposal three times, three different versions, if your first post was as transgressed as your last. "Challenging" is a courtesy that says "I'll play the one asking for the change", it defers my opinion to you. The contrary would have been "done without consensus": you're the one asking for change, you are bringing down guideline stability, get in line and propose your changes like everyone else. ChyranandChloe ( talk) 06:05, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Here are some possible changes to consider for the existing text, which is clearly imperfect:
Overall, I think that the second paragraph under 'proposed' is better than the current text, although there are a few details (e.g., the last sentence of current text) that will need to be added. It might also be worth adding an explanation of the {{ -}} template, since that's what's usually driving the unnecessary blank lines. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 00:03, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree with your six points. However I can only tie point one and five to a direct edit to the prose. I mean the current prose seems to be compatible with most of your points. How do you want to re-assemble it? ChyranandChloe ( talk) 01:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
In point four. When I wrote the text, I had to qualify the assertion. "never" would create the logical fallacy dicto simpliciter. Read literally, "never" implies that editors never make the mistake and the header level has never appeared in the body. However, I think I get what you're getting at, how does "should not be used in the body" sound?
I like point six, its an improvement. However, "is unclear" doesn't seem articulate. When is it "unclear"? Also, "logical system" seems ambiguous: it seems to imply that if an article were not using a logical arrangement (alphabetical, chrono, geo...), it would be illogical. To my understanding, when an article uses an alphabetical, chronological, or geographic arrangement—it's a list, or it's in some way a type of list. This allows us to defer a portion of the text to WP:LIST and WP:SAL. This my question: what are you trying to apply this to? For example, are you trying to apply this clause to something like List of sovereign states, the section "Geographical frequency" in Epidemiology of autism, or both? ChyranandChloe ( talk) 03:55, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
I've come here to ask if anyone overseeing this part of the WP:MOS could offer their expertise in a discussion going on at Talk:Canadian Forces casualties in Afghanistan#Reference list continued. It is regarding the exercise of those policies that guide the order of appendicies at the bottom of an article. Some extra input would be appreciated. Cheers. -- Miesianiacal ( talk) 03:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Is there a guideline for formatting a "see also" link when it's not at the beginning of a section, like so:
-- NE2 09:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
“ | Hyperlinks to other Wikimedia projects (except Wiktionary and Wikisource) should generally not appear outside this section (for details, see Wikipedia:External links). | ” |
Unfortunately, Wikipedia:External links does not currently say where Wiktionary and Wikisource links should go, so I am left wondering—what is the appropriate place for them? DocWatson42 ( talk) 09:04, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Rewritten the prose for greater brevity. [9] For example, if the list is in "in diminishing order of popularity" then the first listed should logically be "the most frequent choice". Don't need to reiterate it. "Several alternate titles ("Sources", "Citations", "Bibliography") may also be used, although each is problematic" seems cumbersome, used "depreciated but not prohibited". What do you guys think? ChyranandChloe ( talk) 04:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
"References" is the most common choice, but any title that indicates the contents is acceptable. Other editors use "Notes", "Footnotes", "Sources", "Citations", "Bibliography", or "Works cited" (in diminishing order of popularity). Some of these are deprecated (but not prohibited): "Sources" may be confused with source code...
I have reverted the recent recent changes, because although the wording is not elegant it is accurate, if there are citations then they are never in my experience never placed in a section called Notes without a References section also existing. --
PBS (
talk) 13:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
My preference is for this guideline to specify the use of "Notes", "References" or "Notes followed by References" and drop the other alternatives. The reason is uniformity. It is important to me that readers are presented the same pattern in any article they encounter. One of the arguments above is that drawing a line will result in edit warring. In my opinion, uniformity ranks in importance somewhat above preventing hypothetical misbehavior. I would like to review previous discussions that defend the alternate naming schemes. Is there a summary someone can direct me to? ✤ JonHarder talk 13:05, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
— Ω ( talk) 22:34, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
— Ω ( talk) 18:55, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
This goes back to the study back in May. There will be articles that do not follow standards, but understand that they are few in number; so few, they're really becoming outliers. That's why I'm sticking the the four listed above. So besides "Notes" and "Footnotes" ("Notes" is about seven times more prevalent than "Footnotes"). There are really only two major systems: (1) Notes/References, (2) References/Bibliography. This excludes explanatory notes, which can only reasonably regresses back to Notes/References/Bibliography if the article needs short/full citations, and Notes/References if the article uses only full citations. This contradicts one of "Bibliography"'s definition as "a list of printed works by the subject of a biography", but the numbers seem to suggest otherwise. Going through the data and possibilities: this is what I've got. Subjectively and politically, and asking the question: is consensus possible? I don't think so, doubt people will forfeit pride for numbers. I'm not going to ask what you guys think. Know the answer, read it before. My central question is: what is your objective analysis? ChyranandChloe ( talk) 01:44, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
— Ω ( talk) 13:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Still brain storming. I believe that there's a better way than what the analysis provided. Seen a lot of new systems. Three examples, (1) in large list articles McGregor proposed a system to place references at the foot of a table, rationale's solid; [14] (2) since short and full references are strongly related, I actually proposed a system to have them subsectioned ( archive 3, example); and (3) ask PBS, military history is way out there ;). Think long term and productivity. After a RFC-level consensus, a WP:BAG approval; bot everything.
There are a lot of methods, this prevents us from being prescriptive. "leave an opening" is ambiguous. I agree with WhatamIdoing's approach, be informative. In that, it's about rewriting the analysis for the guideline. Now, about the problems that have come up, probably will, and what needs kept in check. After POV, MOS is probably number two in arbitration cases. [15] [16] Consensus is hard, for articles this usually entails verifiability. Don't always have that. Without it, we usually end up like POV-pushers. There is opportunity, from which we answer whether consensus works. However, this usually entails politics. The word has come to have a negative connotation, [17] but when we put it in that context: it feels like, in my opinion, we're ignoring the issue. By its denotative definition, politics is the process we need to get there. Irksome? Yeah. Wrote a bit about it, WP:PROCESS. My central question, how do you want to rewrite the section "Notes" and "References" to reflect what is said above? ChyranandChloe ( talk) 00:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
— Ω ( talk) 03:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
user:Pncpa has just rewritten the first part of this guide as an article. Mercurywoodrose ( talk) 19:38, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
It looks like this section just detiorated over time from a series of well-intended edits; I couldn't find any meaningful discussion or reason for the deterioration and deletion of long-standing text, so I restored the long-standing content from mid-June. [18] [19] SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 04:48, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
This subject has been discussed at Talk:Sustainability. As this is a fairly general topic for an article, the Further reading section has become overly long. Should some guidance be added to the FURTHER section in order to put limits on how long the list can become, or has this already been discussed (I couldn't find it in the archive though).— Teahot ( talk) 18:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone object to the text becoming (red text is the change)?:
Obviously some guidance as to what is reasonable may be needed, but this is true of the other WP help available.— Teahot ( talk) 11:31, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
This page seems very susceptible to new editors trying to create articles on totally irrelevant topics, so with WP:AGF let's assume that there is some easy wrong route whereby people end up here when trying to create a first article. Two questions: (a) can anyone see what that route is, and can it be amended? (b) would it be useful to (ask an admin to) create a WP:Editnotice (I only learned about them today) so that anyone starting to edit the page gets a helpful message on the lines of "This article is about how to set out a WP article. If you need help in creating a new WP article, please see Wikipedia:New contributors' help page", or something on those lines? No other pages I watchlist seem to get as many strange edits as this page - things like today's essay and the one mentioned above. PamD ( talk) 14:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Ah, sorry for ambiguity: when I said "This page" I meant the WP:Layout page, rather than this talk page! Thanks for your effort, but I don't think it hits the right target. PamD ( talk) 06:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
I see it's just happened again - I'm intrigued as to how these newby editors are all falling onto WP:Layout rather than other project pages! Any theories? PamD ( talk) 11:51, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Your input will be appreciated in the discussion/proposal at Wikipedia_talk:Stub#Lines_before_stub_template. Debresser ( talk) 22:05, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Should it be stated that image galleries at the end of an article should go before all other end material, i.e. "see also", refs, etc.? » Swpb τ • ¢ 09:48, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Relevant help pages: WP:GALLERY, and WP:IG. "Articles consisting entirely or primarily of galleries are discouraged", but galleries can be useful if used judiciously. Readers are generally not familiar with the {{ commons}} use, and will not find the (often huge and unedited) collections there. Providing an edited gallery at the end of an article is highly informative (if the images can't be fit within the article in a better way). Eg 1750-1795 in fashion, or the one under discussion at Ponte Vecchio (which needs to be trimmed a bit, but not too much). HTH. -- Quiddity ( talk) 19:45, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
When viewed in Internet Explorer there is a huge white space at the top of the page. Not visible in Firefox. Can someone fix? I'm helpless with stuff like this. Didn't notice it until a new editor pointed it out, and the page has been like this for weeks. Thanks. -- JohnnyB256 ( talk) 17:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
how hacker work as? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.97.210.114 ( talk) 06:07, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
The page says: " InterWikimedia links to other projects (except Wiktionary and Wikisource) should generally not appear outside this section". In practice this seems widely ignored. Especially in short articles where there are no images, wikionary links or wikisource ones are often placed as a sort of lead picture, which I don't like. But in articles where text, images etc are very relevant - ones on literature, music or art - they are often placed at "See also", or "References", which seems sensible to me. In most visual arts articles the commons category is a great deal more relevant than most "see also"s and if there are many notes and references it is a pity to have it stranded right at the end. It often fits very neatly, both visually and logically, into "see also" in particular. Is it time to relax this wording, especially for articles where the link is centrally relevant? Johnbod ( talk) 17:01, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
I have gone in a circle in the project's manual of style looking for a good description of the various footer titles and optimal content for each choice of title. The section here that best describes the situation refers only to "popularity". I hope to be either directed to a more developed source of information on Wikipedia, or encourage the writing of one. I also hope that I have uncovered what could be considered to be a loop between Wikipedia:Layout#Notes_and_References and Wikipedia:Footnotes#How_to_use. Also WP:references seems to avoid the subtopic I seek to understand, "Footer titles and contents", and references the other two.
I could reverse engineer the Jane Austin article? CpiralCpiral 19:25, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Discussions are golden. You have provided guidance and wealth, and pointed me the places to get more. Thank you both for your fine displays of style and example. Bye for now. CpiralCpiral 04:35, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
The layout does not relate to the way schools are organized in karachi. There are too many categories. To those familiar with the topic, just a single long list will do nicely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Civilizationsschool ( talk • contribs) 15:06, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
I just noticed the newly-created Template:Infobox_outlines. This infobox contains links to categories, portals, and article. (It previously also included a link to a Wikipedia essay, but I've removed that.) In my view, this violates WP:LAYOUT, which specifically indicates that portals should be place in the See Also section. I'm considering nominating this for deletion, but first wanted to see the opinions of those who more closely follow this guideline. Karanacs ( talk) 14:51, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Sorry for not replying sooner, busy. The statement in the guideline is a qualified as "usually", and is not a prescription that "specifically indicates that portals should be placed in the See Also". There's a difference in both the language and the spirit. It's not a violation. Categories as linkable text (different from footers) are not uncommon in infoboxes concerning outlines, although they are often less conspicuous than the template being discussed (e.g. the "Part of a series on" in {{ Islam}}, {{ Smoking}}, {{ Atmospheric sciences}}). Please explain "your view". ChyranandChloe ( talk) 05:16, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
We don't seem to have a more detailed guide on "Further reading" sections except for the brief section that is present here in this article. This says that "Further reading" sections are functional equivalents of "External links" sections, for which we have well-defined eligibility requirements ( WP:ELNO).
Given the current rise in vanity presses such as Lulu.com (which I cannot link to, thanks to the spam filter, but here are publications from this press in google books) and BookSurge ( google books), should we think about adding a note somewhere that self-published books/vanity press publications are not generally welcome additions to "Further reading" sections?
( This is what prompted my concern.) -- JN 466 13:03, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
I get the impression that the rule of "See also" could be improved.
Extract 1: "A reasonable number of relevant links that would be in the body of a hypothetical perfect article are suitable to add to the "See also" appendix of a less developed one."
Extract 2: "Links already integrated into the body of the text are generally not repeated in a "See also" section,"
Extract 3: "and navigation boxes at bottom of articles may substitute for many links (see bottom of Pathology for example)."
These are just suggestions (my 20 cents?). Thanks -- Nabeth ( talk) 21:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
I am seeing allot of BIG Further reading sections such as this (over half the article). They are sometimes put in under "Reference" but seem to amount ot the same thing. The guidance reasonable number seems pretty common sense but should it be stated more clearly and maybe include "Reference" sections? Is there a cleanup tag for Further reading or Reference sections that have to be reduced? Fountains of Bryn Mawr ( talk) 16:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
The WP:FOOTERS guideline currently states:
Order of optional appendices: [4]
- Works or Publications or Bibliography
- See also
- Notes and/or References
- Further reading
- External links (It is especially important that this section appears last [5])
Order of optional footers:
- Succession boxes and navigational templates (footer navboxes)
- Categories
- Stub templates (the first stub template should be preceded by two blank lines)
- Interlanguage links
The following is also noted in
Perennial Proposals:
# Proposal: The standard appendices at the end of an article (e.g., See also, Notes, References, Further reading, and External links) should be changed to the system preferred by the editor/a particular professional field/the editor's school. These proposals may involve changing the names of the sections (e.g., changing References to Sources or Bibliography), changing the order of the sections (e.g., putting External links first, or References last), or changing the formatting (e.g., long lists of references should be hidden in a scrolling box).
- Reasons for previous rejection: Policies and guidelines document "actual good practices". Most proposals fail to demonstrate that their proposed practice is an emerging, sustainable alternative to the current de facto method. These guidelines only seek to document the status quo and not to change it. The See also precedes the References, Further reading, and External links; the reason for the existing order follows a logical progression from on-wiki to off-wiki information.
Do all the appendices necessarily precede all the optional footers? It seems to me that the "logical progression from on-wiki to off-wiki information" is interrupted somewhat if succession boxes with wikilinks go after the External links. There is also another issue with this practice: at least one well-meaning editor has been moving succession boxes to the end of the article after the "external links" section, and in some cases this is a very confusing move. For example, in articles on pop songs, chart succession boxes have previously been included in the "charts" section, which makes sense. In cases where more than version of the song has been a hit, succession boxes have been included in the "charts" section belonging to the relevant cover version(s) where applicable. However, when this information is moved to the end of the article, it is no longer clear which succession table refers to which version. Example: Take on Me, which was assessed as a good article with the succession boxes in the relevant sections, as is the norm with this type of article. I imagine this situation was unanticipated when the Footers guideline was written.
I propose that, in order to minimise the potential for confusion, the following wording should be added to WP:FOOTERS:
If a succession box refers to a specific section of an article, it should be inserted at the end of that section.
Does that sound OK? Contains Mild Peril ( talk) 20:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll give it a mention there. I don't think there's anything in the template itself which makes it inherently more suitable for the end of the article rather than the end of the section: it's been normal practice to use these boxes at the end of sections as I described for some time and I'm not aware of any problems with this. Contains Mild Peril ( talk) 22:13, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
The whole artcle is based on self publicity . Shame Sabria Jawher —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.120.41.24 ( talk) 21:02, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
There is a an RFC at Template talk:Refimprove. It would be helpful to include a link to a commercial search engine in the template. But this means that there will be external links outside the "External links" section in hundreds of articles. Do the benefits outweigh the drawbacks? See Template talk:Refimprove#RFC: Should a link to a commercial search engine be included in the template Refimprove? -- PBS ( talk) 17:42, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
I started a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research#See_also_and_categories regarding how see also and categories intersect with NOR and POV and how problematic that may or may not be relative to NOR and POV in the article body, if anyone would like to join. Some prior discussions of See also occurred at Wikipedia_talk:Layout/Archive_1#See_also_after_references, Wikipedia_talk:Layout/Archive_2#See_also, Wikipedia_talk:Layout/Archive_3#Length_of_See_Also, Wikipedia_talk:Layout/Archive_4#See_also_suggestion, Wikipedia_talk:Layout/Archive_5#See_also, Wikipedia_talk:Layout/Archive_6#See_also. Шизомби ( talk) 18:15, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Is there any problem with nested see alsos? If for example there were some broad topic of relevance and other subtopics?
Like for Krampus to have the see also section read in relevant part:
I would guess this would be fine, but I can't recall if I've seen it done. Шизомби ( talk) 16:16, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
User:Belovedeagle, [42] User:Graham87, [43] User:Eagle4000, [44] User:Dank, [45] User:MrKIA11, [46] User:Finell, [47] and myself [48]—have all made minor stylistic changes to the article within the past week. The overall change [49] isn't major, although the last edit by Finell introduced errors into the code example in "Links". Please be careful. Death by a thousand small cuts is a concern. Leaving a short message so that changes can be traced would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. ChyranandChloe ( talk) 07:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
What is a watcher? It can count to seven edits. History has a number of watchers. The History page has a Number of watchers process activation link. It is the third of four external tools shown in sequence. Sorry, I could not resist the flow of what I had experienced while satisfying my wondering, confirming what kind of post this was. — Cpiral Cpiral 02:03, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
I propose a link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Section since going here, I did not find the information I was looking for (use of __NOTOC__). —Preceding unsigned comment added by MI6 ( talk • contribs) 08:37, 8 December 2009
The discussion under this heading is unclear; having read the first paragraph, I was left wondering:
Accordingly, I propose that the material under this heading be divided and discussed under two separate headings, viz. "References" and "Notes". Before acting on this proposal, I'd like any feedback you may have.
yoyo ( talk) 12:59, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Template:for example says that we say to put for example templates at the head of a section. We don't. It should go at the end of a section. Yes? — Cpiral Cpiral 19:56, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Template {{ style wide}} is like for example, but with a different documentation error that could have unintended consequences: "Place this template at the end of pages relevant to the Manual of Style." That's it. A command from whom, and for what purpose? Who regulates/polices Wikipedia templates? The Brits could be planning to change Norté American spellings! — Cpiral Cpiral 22:04, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
There are a few more such as {{ infobox}}, {{ Portal}}, success boxes—but I think you'd be more interested in templates that don't follow a well known standard. I don't know if I should be saying this, but I have been a bit associated with a couple non-standard templates. "Part of a series" such as {{ Islam}}, {{ Smoking}}, {{ Atmospheric sciences}}, and {{ Style}} are infobox-like, but because of their very specific application an their relative rarity, editors innovate instead. I'll just tell you right now, I do have a preference towards collapsible sort: think fixed height, static part of the series templates are backward. There are more examples, each with its own story. If you want I can tell you the stories of {{ Gallery}}, {{ Cnote2}}, {{ FAQ row}}, and {{ Outline header}}.
There are some controversies, for example some editors disapprove of infoboxes, and their argument is that they're un-needed or controlled by a small group of editors ( Jane Austen is a good example). Despite this, templates are usually much quieter since the number of editors who understand templates well enough to write, modify, and deploy them are very few in number than those who just know how to hit the edit button. There's also innovation in templates. The big thing in the infobox world is microformats, which is a type of meta-data, for example if you enter the population of a city into an infobox, the search engine will interpret it as, well, the population of the city rather than some number. I don't do infoboxes though, friend does, talk to Dudemanfellabra. Pretzels does the Signpost. My job, well, probably has an explanation of its own. ChyranandChloe ( talk) 05:47, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
==Header 2==
to ====Header 4====
without ===Header 3===
in the middle, violates
Wikipedia:Accessibility as it reduces usability for readers on screen readers who use heading levels to navigate pages.
==Header 2==
to ====Header 4====
without ===Header 3===
in the middle, violates
Wikipedia:Accessibility as it reduces usability for readers on screen readers who use heading levels to navigate pages.
==Header 2==
to ====Header 4====
without ===Header 3===
in the middle, violates
Wikipedia:Accessibility as it reduces usability for readers on screen readers who use heading levels to navigate pages.