Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Layout

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Manual of Style
WikiProject icon This page 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.
 

Further reading[edit]

Perhaps somebody should add a note to it telling editors not to confuse further reading with the bibliography of sources section as I've just had somebody twice get their wires crossed with the Meryl Streep article and then cite WP:FURTHER as the reason why articles should not have bibliographies and only further reading sections.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:00, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld and Dr.K.: You could direct them to Shortened footnotes, perhaps they are unfamiliar with that referencing system. Regarding the title for that section, "Further reading" is certainly not suitable; but "Bibliography" is a poor title as it's ambiguous, see MOS:APPENDIX#Works or publications and MOS:APPENDIX#Notes and references. Personally I use "References", as I did at NBR 224 and 420 Classes, but that would mean amending two headings at Meryl Streep. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:11, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Well, nobody expressed concern with "bibliography" at the Enid Blyton and Philip Seymour Hoffman FACs of late, and most articles seem to state bibliography. Perhaps somebody like Ian Rose or Graham Beards could offer a better insight into whether it's acceptable. I'm pretty sure most articles going through will have a bibliography section under references. The only confusion I can see is people thinking the bibliography is book written about them or by them, but if it's sub sectioned under references it should be clear.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:17, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
There is little consistency; see my comments of 20:39, 18 December 2014 at #Works cited above, particularly the parenthesis beginning "a few weeks ago". --Redrose64 (talk) 12:33, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
I know Tim riley prefers "Sources" rather than bibliography, but as you say there's a range of formatting ideas and titles permitted. But bibliography of sources should never be confused with further reading!♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:39, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Tks DrB. Personally I use Notes for citations and References for books consulted but using Bibliography for the latter still appears to be acceptable as far as MOS is concerned and, while it is, I expect it to be acceptable at FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:40, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the ping Redrose. Personally, I'm ok with anything except "Further reading" which is misleading. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 12:54, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks guys. Ian Rose, what do you do when you have some actual footnotes to add though above the citation section, do you call it "Footnotes"?♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:05, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Well I do find "Footnotes" above "Notes" a bit odd-looking so I generally treat it as a Kobayashi Maru and find a way around using the footnote... ;-) Seriously though, in my early days I would just put a footnote in the Notes section (as you find in some books) and in a later article I used a Footnotes section followed by a Citations section instead of a Notes section. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:43, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Usually I put true "notes" in the same section as the "short footnotes", distinguished by index mark (letters for the true "notes"), see NBR 224 and 420 Classes mentioned above. In only one case did I use three sections, and I also mentioned it at 20:39, 18 December 2014 (search for "some even have three"). --Redrose64 (talk) 14:24, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Redrose64, precisely why I disagree with the use of Bibliography for persons that aren't authors, because it is misleading. Further reading means exactly what it states ("publications that would help interested readers learn more about the article subject"), unlike "Bibliography", which is wholly ambiguous. If the purported "Bibliography" section is a list of sources used then they should just be listed under "References". --Lapadite (talk) 01:33, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Interwiki links[edit]

I wish that the section "Order of article elements" included an item "Interwiki links".

Knife-in-the-drawer (talk) 03:26, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

It used to have one, but was removed once Wikidata became the normal place for interlanguage links. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:15, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for that info. Today, I was fixing Checkwiki #53 errors ("An interwiki appears before the last category") for the first time. Consulting this MOS/Layout article, I saw that "Interwiki links" weren't specified, and I didn't know where they should be placed in relation to stub templates. Knife-in-the-drawer (talk) 16:01, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
If there are any, they should be after the stubs - per this version from just over two years ago, which was the last one to mention them. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:12, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Redrose64. Very helpful. Knife-in-the-drawer (talk) 01:46, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Location of tag[edit]

There is a dispute (and brewing edit war) regarding the proper location at which to place the refimprove maintenance/cleanup template/tag. Input of others would be helpful.

Discussion is here. --Epeefleche (talk) 22:25, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Paragraphs: at least three sentences[edit]

Greetings! Do we have a WP recommendation according to which a paragraph should consist of at least three sentences? As far as I understand, this is the (minimum) practice commonly used. For example, Palmer, Richard. 1993. Write in Style: A Guide to Good English. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 0-203-47309-4 says that three sentences per section is the minimum bar. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 17:07, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

The author goes on to explain that this and other "rules of thumb" mentioned are not true "rules" in any prescriptive sense, and need not always be followed. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 03:22, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

See also links with italic titles[edit]

Should see also links to pages with italic titles (i.e., The New York Times) be in italics in the see also section of another article? Liam987 talk 16:27, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:05, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes. They should be italicized in all article sections, including external links. Lapadite (talk) 07:21, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Order of footer parts[edit]

Section four (4) is currently ordered thus:

  1. Footers
    1. Navigation templates (footer navboxes)
    2. Geographical coordinates (if not in Infobox) or {{coord missing}}
    3. Authority control template
    4. Persondata template
    5. Defaultsort
    6. Categories
    7. Stub template

I should like to see this reordered according to the following, more logical, plan:

  1. Things about the article subject, that are displayed here
  2. Things about related articles, that are displayed here
  3. Things about the article subject, that are hidden
  4. Things about the article subject, that are displayed at the top of the article
  5. Things about the article subject, that are displayed at the foot of the article
  6. Temporary maintenance templates

That would mean changing section four to:

  1. Footers
    1. Authority control template
    2. Navigation templates (footer navboxes)
    3. Geographical coordinates (if not in Infobox)
    4. Persondata template
    5. Defaultsort
    6. Categories
    7. {{coord missing}}

In terms of visual display, this means that authority control, being about the current article, goes before navigation to other articles. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:57, 22 May 2015 (UTC)