Template talk:Style

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Manual of Style
WikiProject icon This template falls within the scope of WikiProject Manual of Style, a drive to identify and address contradictions and redundancies, improve language, and coordinate the pages that form the MoS guidelines.
 

Discussion[edit]

Please add issues below as you see fit.

Navigation[edit]

On WP:MOSDASH I've moved Template:Style(edit talk links history) to the bottom of the page into a new section. The output of this template is nice and useful, but at the top of the page it obfuscates the lead section and ToC. It's painful to scroll down many lines before the main article appears. Omniplex 17:38, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

A simple align="right" didn't work as expected. To get a floating right effect (e.g. together with the ToC) {{Wrapper}} might do the trick. Omniplex  16:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Redesign[edit]

If we're going to redesign it, can we change it to CSS instead of tables for layout at the same time? -Quiddity 22:41, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Additions?[edit]

Should I add the other Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Submanuals that aren't listed here yet? --Quiddity 04:32, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Done, and a few more fixes. Revert if its new length breaks anything. —Quiddity 21:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

How about Wikipedia:Summary style? - jc37 11:48, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Done. --Quiddity 18:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

And I have now added Infoboxes Frelke 12:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Should Wikipedia:Record charts be added? This list keeps getting longer... what if we start to merge some pages (e.g. Wikipedia:Record charts with Wikipedia:Manual of Style (music))? It's not really a problem belonging to this specific template, which is just a result of the underlying problem of too many guidelines on too many pages... it makes it hard to find certain information. -Rocket000 19:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Yet another one: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (diagrams and maps). Should i just add it? -- Jokes Free4Me (talk) 16:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Overhaul[edit]

See Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_94#Overhaul_of_the_so-called_Style_Template. Tony (talk) 04:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Related to specific culture[edit]

I've moved all the "ThisCountry-related articles" to a COMMON sub-section. I think it doesn't matter that some of them are policies and other guides, because there is no clash for any country, i.e. there is no policy about France and guide about France. Furthermore, I propose splitting them to a completely different template. I think that some more over-specific links should join, like Chemistry, Math, etc. Let's leave only very general and very basic stuff here. Comments? --Kubanczyk (talk) 18:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:Manual of Style (Latter Day Saints) --> "Related to specific cultures" section[edit]

Shouldn't the WP:Manual of Style (Latter Day Saints) link be in the "Related to specific cultures" section? It is very out of place where it is now. I am going to be bold and move it down the template, but feel free to revert me. Plasticup T/C 22:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Numbers[edit]

Although numbers is included in the list, it's not immediately obvious (being listed under "D" for "Dates and numbers"). For something so basic, I think it ought to have its own entry and have been bold and made it so. Bazza (talk) 14:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Two subsequent reverts - both without discussion - have prompted me to suggest a more radical change: separate Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) into Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates) and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), with a separate entry for each in this template's list. Bazza (talk) 14:31, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Doesn't sound a bad idea, but you'd better bring it up there (i.e. at WT:MOSNUM - which I should warn you is a page where tensions traditionally run inexplicably high).--Kotniski (talk) 14:43, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Really long[edit]

This template is really long. Can we get some "hide/show" sections, so that pages that are primarily connected to a single aspect could display a shorter list? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Took the format from another series I was working on, WP:PROCESS, and used it as the guide for this one. Shortened the titles for some sections. The section "Help" are in my opinion unnecessary, it can be removed. ChyranandChloe (talk) 01:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Subsections[edit]

Is it possible to have subsections appear on the list, once a main page is highlighted. For example Wikipedia:Words to avoid has its own entry, Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words is in the articles 'See also' section and seems closely related. it would make sense to me if once you were on 'words to avoid', that the navbox then displayed the pages that are related so one would get:

Wikimedia sister projects
Words to avoid
Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms
Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words
other subpages...
other sections

I'm sure I've seen this done in other templates, but not sure how easy it is. Lee∴V (talkcontribs) 11:00, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank heaven: narrower[edit]

Thanks to Eubulides for removing the excess white space in the template. Tony (talk) 09:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Adding A Missing Page[edit]

{{editsemiprotected}}

Add

It has the {{style-guideline}} warning.174.3.98.236 (talk) 04:23, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Set Sail For The Seven Seas 230° 29' 45" NET 15:21, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposed replacement[edit]

User:Gnevin/sandbox6. Thoughts ? Gnevin (talk) 17:09, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Would you describe the changes you have made? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:56, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
This has been live for a while without objection so it probably safe to say this is acceptable. Basically I replace links to the individual MoS to the Categories as you see it now Gnevin (talk) 12:27, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Manual of Style (film)[edit]

Is there a reason why WP:MOSFILM is not included in the template? Almogo (talk) 16:31, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Small change[edit]

Change the text in the button from 'Search the MoS' to 'Search the Manual'. Just to avoid the acronym. cheers --Boy.pockets (talk) 10:59, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Midager, 2 June 2011[edit]

I have a picture of Dave Keon. How do I insert it.


Midager (talk) 09:33, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done Sorry Midager. Template:Style does not require a photo of Dave Keon. GaneshBhakt (talk) 10:34, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Enhance NavBox to include more links?[edit]

There is a discussion in MOS Talk page regarding ways to improve searching/indexing for the many Manual Of Style (MOS) pages in WP. It seems to me that this template Template:Style could be vastly improved: in addition to pointing the reader to the MOS categories (which this template already does) it could also list all the important of the MOS-related articles. The key goal is to help readers quickly find MOS-related articles, and help them save time so they dont have to visit the categories, etc. Putting the important MOS articles directly in the NavBox will help readers quickly and directly find the info they need. I'm willing to improve the template in that manner, but I welcome comments. --Noleander (talk) 18:04, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

It looks like this template used to have a fairly comprehensive list of MOS articles: here is a version from 2009 here which contains specific articles. The layout is not very clean, but at least users could get to the MOS pages in a single click. I don't see a discussion above in this Talk page that explains why the articles were removed from the template. I'm proposing to improve the template to be the best of both worlds: Maintain the current category-oriented hierarchy, but also include many of the important MOS pages, so users can get to their destination in one click. I dont suggest using the 2008-2009 layout, but instead something more concise and user-friendly. Of course, if the template gets too large, the use of collapsible Show/Hide subsections would be employed. Thoughts? --Noleander (talk) 18:14, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
There are lots of great NavBoxes out there to use as examples, but here is one that is rather user-friendly, and fits quite a few articles in a compact space: Template:WorldWarIISegmentUnderInfoBox. Notice two features: (a) the use of Show/Hide section; and (b) the hierarchical layout. Both of which could be used in this MOS template. --Noleander (talk) 18:24, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Draft navbox[edit]

Here is a draft of a proposed improvement: Template talk:Style/draft A: --Noleander (talk) 21:29, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I propose to replace the current template with this new template in a few days. If anyone has any suggestions, speak up. --Noleander (talk) 16:05, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
To difficult to maintain which is why I moved to the current category based system . It is also to busy , too many links Gnevin (talk) 23:17, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Maintainability is not an issue: there are many editors, including myself, willing to maintain it. You say it is "too busy", yet it is comparable to scores of other NavBoxes throughout WP, both in size and number of articles it holds. The current MOS navBox is rather odd: it contains only links to categories ... there are no other examples of such category-oriented NavBoxes within WP. Instead, the MOS NavBox should be consistent with the hundreds of other WP navboxes, and contain links to pages, not categories. There are hundreds of topics in WP that are indexed by both categories and article-oriented NavBoxes ... MOS indexing should be no different. --Noleander (talk) 01:12, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
The number of links will depend on the outcome of the present discussion on reorganizing subpages. So I don't know how you can list them all now. You're "willing to maintain it"? How? By listing each category every n weeks for years to come, to see if anything has been added? Art LaPella (talk) 01:46, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Art: The discussion at the MOS talk page revolves around converting pages to subpages, not renaming them. Questions: What makes you think this sidebar template will be harder to maintain than any other sidebar in WP? Of the hundreds of sidebar templates in WP, can you name one that lists categories, rather than articles/pages? Why should this sidebar navbox be different? Please refer to Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates which says:
The grouping of articles by one method neither requires nor forbids the use of the other methods for the same informational grouping. Instead, each method of organizing information has its own advantages and disadvantages, and is applied for the most part independently of the other methods following the guidelines and standards that have evolved on Wikipedia for each of these systems.Accordingly, these methods should not be considered in conflict with each other. Rather, they are synergistic, each one complementing the others.
--Noleander (talk) 01:51, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── If the size is the major objection, a compromise would be to have a Show/Hide choice next to each section, as is shown in "draft B": Template talk:Style/draft B (shown at right). That way the navbox would initially be small (as it currently is) but users could expand by clicking the Show button. And the Navbox would then be consistent with the other WP navboxes, by listing articles/pages. --Noleander (talk) 01:58, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Manual of Style
WT:MOS#Resources for this RFC lists 82 subpages and candidate subpages. Your template only lists 55. Of course we can expect changes in the list to result from that discussion. The discussion at the MOS talk page started with converting pages to subpages, but now it says: "contain the unexamined and disorderly proliferation of guidelines ... pages can be merged (mutually, or into WP:MOS); or that some can be abandoned."
I don't have a good answer for "What makes [me] think this sidebar template will be harder to maintain than any other sidebar in WP?", except that Manual of Style regulars seem completely unaware of obscure subpages. I don't understand why you included the quote, which says that the grouping of articles in one system (like the existing Style template) doesn't have to match the grouping of articles on other pages – to me, that quote argues against your own conclusion. Art LaPella (talk) 02:14, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
The current category-based system is not intuitive. Most people expect that the links are going to link to individual pages, not categories, so if the pages aren't listed explicitly, most people are going to just assume they don't exist. This proposal is an improvement, in my opinion. Kaldari (talk) 21:20, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
@Art: I'm sorry, I dont follow what you are saying. There are hundreds of Sidbar Navboxes throughout WP that contain articles/pages (not categories). The current Style navbox is the only Navbox within WP that is violating that convention. The quote from Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates makes it clear that a Navbox is an independent from Categories. If a user wants to search for MOS articles via Categories, the user should scroll to the bottom of a MOS article, and click on the "Category: MOS" link at the bottom ... that is how Categories work. Navboxes in the upper right always list articles/pages, not categories. It is not clear to me why you repeatedly bring up the possibility that the list of MOS pages may change over time: of course it will. But that is true of all WP articles, pages, and Navboxes, and is not a reason to deviate from the Navbox convention. Your statistic about "82 pages" is very misleading: only 57 pages are valid (the other 25 are proposed or obsolete). Also: what do you think of the "show/hide" proposal: where the main dividing bars are the existing Category links, and the user can click "show" to see the articles/pages in that topic (shown above)? --Noleander (talk) 19:19, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't (or no longer) disagree much with any of that. Yes, a close reading of your quote in context says what you say it says (although ironically it could also be used to justify "the only Navbox within WP that is violating that convention"). "It is not clear to me why you repeatedly bring up the possibility"; true, that's why I said I don't have a good answer. Yes, when I looked through the list of 25 articles, most are inactive, historical, proposals or drafts (but not all of them; Islam, for instance, is included in your own list.) Show/hide – do other navboxes work that way? As a practical matter, the existing Style template makes me click more than one category, because that is faster than meditating on whether the issue I have in mind is best defined as "content", "formatting", or "layout". So just seeing those headings without the subpages doesn't help me much. The "Search the MOS" field on top is preferable to the bottom; I have often argued that the entire page should direct attention to that field, with almost all distractions moved elsewhere. But it does seem likely that the other subpage discussion will produce its own means of searching them, so I think the two discussions should be brought together. Art LaPella (talk) 17:32, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Following your suggestion, I moved the Search field from the bottom to top in draft B of the Navbox. Regarding the situation where a user is hunting for a MOS guideline, but doesnt know which topic area it is in: Say the it takes 3 tries at subtopics before the user finds the correct guideline. In the current category-oriented NavBox, that is six clicks to get to the guidline (topic A; back; topic B; back; topic C; select). Draft A (which shows all the pages without show/hide) takes only a single click. Draft B (show/hide) takes four clicks (topic A show; topic B show; topic C show; select). Thus, both draft A and draft B are superior to the current Navbox, click-wise. --Noleander (talk) 22:33, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Correct, especially since "show" clicks are faster than wikilink clicks. Art LaPella (talk) 01:54, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Not seeing any additional feedback, I've moved "draft B" into the public template. More feedback and ideas are always useful. --Noleander (talk) 18:41, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Noleander, let me say how much I appreciate your work on this issue – and also your attention to the related matter of restructuring the Manual of Style. The RFC proposal for that has been successful (21 votes to 2), and I think early discussion between you and me did something to fill in the gaps and to show up the desirability of that change. I remain sympathetic to your proposal here: a more detailed "signpost" would be great. But there are sore and sensitive disagreements affecting the Manual just now (as you can see from recent sections at WT:MOS), and we have to sequence things methodically to make things go well. I want to develop a schedule for implementing the restructure. I see no reason to exclude the template reform that you are advocating from that schedule; but I do think it belongs after the restructuring effort, as Art LaPella appears to suggest above.
Let's collaborate on all this. I hope you will join in at WT:MOS as we all work out what steps to take, and what order to take them in. I hope that Art will be active in that also; I think he is a serious advocate of simplicity and retrievability for the guidelines.
NoeticaTea? 09:32, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't believe any of us wants to go back to the old template. So I suggest we regard this template change as complete. We can change it again to accommodate the restructuring effort, if any. Art LaPella (talk) 20:53, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
As for my contribution to the restructuring effort, I once asked why it really matters how we name the articles. The rest of you seem to have that answer better than I do, so I consider it a good time to watch. Art LaPella (talk) 20:57, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Section links: to page? or to category?[edit]

An aspect of this navbox that may confuse some users is when a section, such as "Music", (which has a Category) also has a dedicated "Music" page. When a user clicks on the "Music" section link, where should the user be vectored: to the MOS Music category? or to the MOS-Music page? --Noleander (talk) 18:46, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I think the only answer is the category. Most of the categories don't have that problem, so a user familiar with the other links will be expecting links to categories. If a person clicks "Music" because he is looking for the dedicated Music page, he will quickly see "Music" among his choices. But if a person is looking for the music samples page, clicks "Music", and is sent to the dedicated "Music" page, he will be much more seriously lost. Art LaPella (talk) 22:53, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Specific Geographic naming issues[edit]

The page Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) has a long list of country-specific issues regarding names. Most of these are too short to warrant their own pages, but should nevertheless be included within WP:MOS in one way or another. I have taken the bull by the horns and added them to the Regional section of this list. I trust that this is in order. Martinvl (talk) 09:12, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Move[edit]

can we move this to template:Manual of Style? I have been cleaning up transclusions in article space for several hours today. most of them are from {} typos like this one, but some are from confusion with maintenance tags. Frietjes (talk) 17:21, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Parameter "expanded"[edit]

What should I do if I want to expand more than one section? Corphine (talk) 07:46, 28 November 2013 (UTC)


Requested move 18 June 2014[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 22:36, 4 July 2014 (UTC)



Template:Style? – "Style" alone too general. Sardanaphalus (talk) 09:38, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Survey[edit]

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
  • Suggest Template:MoS sidebar or Template:Manual of Style sidebar with Template:MoS sidebar as a shorter version that redirects. Sardanaphalus (talk) 09:40, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Rename to {{WPMOS sidebar}} per WP:MOS ; and to not occupy a location potentially usable in articles about various manuals of style. The current {{style}} should redirect to the cleanup message {{tone}} after this is moved and all tranclusions replaced. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 11:00, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. Pointless. Has a single person ever misused this template thinking it was for something else? Solution in search of a problem. Jenks24 (talk) 12:40, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
    • {{tone}} would seem to be definitely confusable with the name of this template. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 05:07, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
      • Again, I think that is looking for a problem that isn't really there. If you can show me one example of this template being confused with {{tone}} I'll change to support. Jenks24 (talk) 14:45, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
        • The very text of the template This article's tone or style may not reflect the encyclopedic tone used on Wikipedia would indicate that this should be the preferred usage for "style". How'd you go about searching for prior transclusions of this template for errors of cleanup template attachment? -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 06:31, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
          • I fail to see why anyone reading that would somehow think the template is called "Template:Style". Not sure how you would go about it, but surely if it was a real problem there would be plenty of examples. Jenks24 (talk) 14:23, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

Any additional comments:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.