This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Manual of Style/Lists page. |
|
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8Auto-archiving period: 60 days |
This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
Or do they have to have an article showing notability here? Doug Weller talk 16:57, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Many editors--myself included--remove non-notable links from lists (which would include links to foreign language Wikis).Am I to understand that "many editors" automatically consider links to foreign language Wikis to be "non-notable" in spite of what is said at Wikipedia:Wikimedia_sister_projects#When_to_link and also in spite of the fact that notability is not mentioned even one time at Help:Interwiki linking or Help:Interlanguage links? So, I'm wondering where you and these many editors are getting the idea those aren't notable if it isn't mentioned in any documentation that I can easily find? Huggums537 ( talk) 01:29, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
There is a discussion at the WP:FRAT talk page about list creation/inclusion which could use outside input. Please join in the conversation here. Primefac ( talk) 10:45, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
I work on a lot of disambiguation pages and name lists and alumni lists, which sometimes involves copying lines from, for example, a given name page to a surname page, or from a name page to an alumni list. These are typically bulleted lists, which may either be formatted as:
*Foo
*Bar
*Foobar
or:
* Foo
* Bar
* Foobar
The outcome is the same, so I am wondering if there is any technical reason who one should be preferred over the other. Frankly, I would prefer to have a set house style and conform pages to it generally. It is annoying to copy lines to multiple relevant lists and to have to edit that space every time to conform to the variations of individual pages. BD2412 T 21:54, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
* Foo
* Bar
* Foobar
<ul><li>Foo</li>
<li>Bar</li>
<li>Foobar</li></ul>
<ul><li>Foo</li>
<li>Bar</li>
<li>Foobar</li></ul>
==Foo==
versus == Foo ==
) be worked into MoS, and the result is always a consensus against the idea, because MoS exists for ensuring quality and consistent and understandable content for the readers (and secondarily for reducing editorial conflicts about styling that content), but this sort of thing isn't styling the content, having no effect on what editors see, or any accessibility effect on editors or readers, possibly the only other reason we'd care about a code-formatting matter. There's just not a consensus to prefer one style over the other. To the extent anything in MoS would apply to this stuff, it would be
MOS:STYLEVAR: if there are two acceptable styles, don't arbitrarily change from one to the other. For my part, when I encounter messy lists, I normalize to which ever style already dominates in the page. If there is no clear "winner", and just a really random mess, I usually normalize to the spaced style as marginally more readable for editors. But only if making a more substantial improvement in the same edit. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 03:12, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
Please see
Talk:Singular they#MOS:DLIST. The short version is that the article is abusing :
(= HTML <dd>
) description/definition/association list markup dozens of times as a visual indentation mechanism, and needs cleanup to use {{
block indent}}
or (where actual quotations are used) {{
blockquote}}
. And, where DLISTs are appropriate, it should be using proper ;
with :
lists, not mangled *
with :
markup. But I'm not finding I have the time and patience to do it all. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 11:09, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
Here is a humdrum example of a common phenomenon: A list ("Festivals") with a single reference ("[4]") atop, and presumably for, all the items. Let's avoid what's irrelevant to the question I'm about to pose, and instead assume that the referenced source is reliable, and that it does indeed back up the appropriateness of each list item. A reference index floating by itself looks wrong (to me). An obvious alternative is to repeat the (named) reference for every list item; easily done, of course but the result would look lame-brained (to me). Another obvious (but worse) alternative would be to append the reference to the last item; but then it would be unclear whether this reference was supplied for the list as a whole or merely for its last item. And one could supply an introductory sentence ("According to Taiwan Docs,[4] the film has been shown in the following festivals:"), but this adds flab. Is there a better way of referencing an entire list? -- Hoary ( talk) 01:23, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
<ref name="foo" />
format or {{
sfn}}
or some other shorthand for entries after the first one; obviously don't repeat the entire citation over and over again. Every list item should be sourceable, various of them will accrete additional citations over time, and more people will add new entries with (we certainly hope) other citations to back them up. The exception would be when it's a list of a permanently fixed number of things that do not change (e.g. already-complete list of presidents of a company that no longer exists). In such a case, have an intro sentence/phrase above the list with a single citation at the end of that sentence/phrase. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 01:44, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
The template {{ infobox cocktail}} automatically forces a bulleted list for its main-alcohol parameters. Bulleted lists in infoboxes aren't unheard-of, though rare. However, that template forces a bullet even for single entrants, making the oxymoronic single-item list. Given there is no actual list created, should that template be invoking list markup for single variables? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 22:27, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
#if
test to check for multiple parameter values. And it should probably use an unbulleted list, since bulleted ones are unusual in infoboxes and waste space in them. The more general ingredients list lower in the i'box might sensibly use a bullet list, but it could be CSS kerned to waste less horizontal space. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 00:28, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lists § Should Template:Dynamic list be used in sections that also have Template:Main?. {{u| Sdkb}} talk 21:32, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Manual of Style/Lists page. |
|
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8Auto-archiving period: 60 days |
This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
Or do they have to have an article showing notability here? Doug Weller talk 16:57, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Many editors--myself included--remove non-notable links from lists (which would include links to foreign language Wikis).Am I to understand that "many editors" automatically consider links to foreign language Wikis to be "non-notable" in spite of what is said at Wikipedia:Wikimedia_sister_projects#When_to_link and also in spite of the fact that notability is not mentioned even one time at Help:Interwiki linking or Help:Interlanguage links? So, I'm wondering where you and these many editors are getting the idea those aren't notable if it isn't mentioned in any documentation that I can easily find? Huggums537 ( talk) 01:29, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
There is a discussion at the WP:FRAT talk page about list creation/inclusion which could use outside input. Please join in the conversation here. Primefac ( talk) 10:45, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
I work on a lot of disambiguation pages and name lists and alumni lists, which sometimes involves copying lines from, for example, a given name page to a surname page, or from a name page to an alumni list. These are typically bulleted lists, which may either be formatted as:
*Foo
*Bar
*Foobar
or:
* Foo
* Bar
* Foobar
The outcome is the same, so I am wondering if there is any technical reason who one should be preferred over the other. Frankly, I would prefer to have a set house style and conform pages to it generally. It is annoying to copy lines to multiple relevant lists and to have to edit that space every time to conform to the variations of individual pages. BD2412 T 21:54, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
* Foo
* Bar
* Foobar
<ul><li>Foo</li>
<li>Bar</li>
<li>Foobar</li></ul>
<ul><li>Foo</li>
<li>Bar</li>
<li>Foobar</li></ul>
==Foo==
versus == Foo ==
) be worked into MoS, and the result is always a consensus against the idea, because MoS exists for ensuring quality and consistent and understandable content for the readers (and secondarily for reducing editorial conflicts about styling that content), but this sort of thing isn't styling the content, having no effect on what editors see, or any accessibility effect on editors or readers, possibly the only other reason we'd care about a code-formatting matter. There's just not a consensus to prefer one style over the other. To the extent anything in MoS would apply to this stuff, it would be
MOS:STYLEVAR: if there are two acceptable styles, don't arbitrarily change from one to the other. For my part, when I encounter messy lists, I normalize to which ever style already dominates in the page. If there is no clear "winner", and just a really random mess, I usually normalize to the spaced style as marginally more readable for editors. But only if making a more substantial improvement in the same edit. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 03:12, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
Please see
Talk:Singular they#MOS:DLIST. The short version is that the article is abusing :
(= HTML <dd>
) description/definition/association list markup dozens of times as a visual indentation mechanism, and needs cleanup to use {{
block indent}}
or (where actual quotations are used) {{
blockquote}}
. And, where DLISTs are appropriate, it should be using proper ;
with :
lists, not mangled *
with :
markup. But I'm not finding I have the time and patience to do it all. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 11:09, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
Here is a humdrum example of a common phenomenon: A list ("Festivals") with a single reference ("[4]") atop, and presumably for, all the items. Let's avoid what's irrelevant to the question I'm about to pose, and instead assume that the referenced source is reliable, and that it does indeed back up the appropriateness of each list item. A reference index floating by itself looks wrong (to me). An obvious alternative is to repeat the (named) reference for every list item; easily done, of course but the result would look lame-brained (to me). Another obvious (but worse) alternative would be to append the reference to the last item; but then it would be unclear whether this reference was supplied for the list as a whole or merely for its last item. And one could supply an introductory sentence ("According to Taiwan Docs,[4] the film has been shown in the following festivals:"), but this adds flab. Is there a better way of referencing an entire list? -- Hoary ( talk) 01:23, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
<ref name="foo" />
format or {{
sfn}}
or some other shorthand for entries after the first one; obviously don't repeat the entire citation over and over again. Every list item should be sourceable, various of them will accrete additional citations over time, and more people will add new entries with (we certainly hope) other citations to back them up. The exception would be when it's a list of a permanently fixed number of things that do not change (e.g. already-complete list of presidents of a company that no longer exists). In such a case, have an intro sentence/phrase above the list with a single citation at the end of that sentence/phrase. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 01:44, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
The template {{ infobox cocktail}} automatically forces a bulleted list for its main-alcohol parameters. Bulleted lists in infoboxes aren't unheard-of, though rare. However, that template forces a bullet even for single entrants, making the oxymoronic single-item list. Given there is no actual list created, should that template be invoking list markup for single variables? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 22:27, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
#if
test to check for multiple parameter values. And it should probably use an unbulleted list, since bulleted ones are unusual in infoboxes and waste space in them. The more general ingredients list lower in the i'box might sensibly use a bullet list, but it could be CSS kerned to waste less horizontal space. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 00:28, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lists § Should Template:Dynamic list be used in sections that also have Template:Main?. {{u| Sdkb}} talk 21:32, 2 January 2024 (UTC)