Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Layout

Position of Italic title

This is a technical issue and not a style issue. {{Italic title}} should be placed directly beneath {{Short description}} as described in its documentation. Moving it from there creates an extra whitespace. See previous revisions of Hāfu, Sakana, and Exsurge Domine. 9³ (talk) 04:10, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

In these specific revisions, the double-newline right after the title style template is to blame for the extraneous spacing. Nontheless, I agree that the guideline should match the template's documentation on this issue. IceWelder [✉] 06:54, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

In my experience, no other properly written template creates extraneous spacing because of double-newlines. Either it is a technical limitation in MediaWiki or the template is just poorly written. I'm unable to find a style guide for wikitext markup but I think that forbidding double-newlines would create readability problems not to mention having to remove them from literally every single article. 9³ (talk) 07:33, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and edited the guideline at the two parentheticals to reflect this, as I see no objections and the template is still broken. 9³ (talk) 21:37, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

I think this makes MOS:ORDER too complicated. I recommend picking one spot for {{DISPLAYTITLE}}, {{Lowercase title}}, {{Italic title}} and sticking it there. Having it twice with long explanations like "(may also be placed before the infobox except for {{Italic title}} when the article has a short description, see below)" is not ideal, and creates succinctness and maintainability concerns. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:41, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

I fully agree that it looks unwieldy and would support a proposal for a single position. @Redrose64: Is it still not possible for {{Italic title}} to be rewritten to allow for placement at either position regardless of the existence of a short description, as with DISPLAYTITLE and Lowercase title? 9³ (talk) 06:50, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

You mentioned me: where is the comment of mine that you are replying to? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:01, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Template:Improve categories

Hey PamD. I did a Twinkle test, and Twinkle places {{Improve categories}} below stubs. Any objections if I shift {{Improve categories}} back to the bottom? Thanks. Diff from TestWiki. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:52, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

@Novem Linguae: Yes, I do object. Twinkle should follow the MOS, rather than us modifying the MOS because Twinkle is getting things wrong. All stub templates should be at the very bottom of the article. It's a long-established rule and keeps things simple for editors who stub-sort or destub articles: they know where to find the templates. If Twinkle is misbehaving, please report it as a bug in Twinkle. Thanks for coming here to discuss, as per WP:BRD. PamD 08:20, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

It was previously not in the MOS. I added {{Improve categories}} to this page a month or two ago, in this diff. It was stable until today. I wonder if there is a WP:SILENT consensus that {{Improve categories}} should go at the very bottom, since Twinkle has been doing it this way for a long time without objection. I pause for feedback from other editors. If insufficient feedback is received, I may self revert and remove {{Improve categories}} from this page, as I think that would be superior to suggesting it be placed in a spot that doesn't match where it is usually placed. I also note that the documentation for {{Improve categories}} states It is recommended that this template be placed at the bottom of the page, where readers will look for the categories. –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:13, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

@Novem Linguae: I interpret "at the bottom" in that quote as being "adjacent to the categories, which are at the bottom, albeit not the extreme bottom, of the page" - as distinct from most or all other similar maintenance templates which go "at the top of the page" (except for short description, hatnotes, etc). But it will be interesting to see what other people say. I will mention this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stub sorting which is where the people most interested in stub templates can be found. Although this discussion is nominally about {{improve categories}} and {{uncategorized}} (which should unquestionably go in the same place as each other, and I would agree that place should be adjacent to the categories, although there seem to be two views as to whether they should be before or after the categories), it is in effect a discussion of the placement of {{stub}} and all other stub templates: whether they should be the very last item in the page. PamD 09:28, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Sounds good, happy to get more input. {{Uncategorized}} is interesting, Twinkle places it on top, and its documentation says top or bottom is fine. So I removed that one from MOS:ORDER earlier today to avoid confusion. –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:32, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

@Novem Linguae: I've just checked Template:Stub#How_is_a_stub_identified? which states "at the very end...", rather than anything less precise. PamD 09:36, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

It has long been agreed that stub templates go last of all (until the advent of Wikidata, interlanguage links were last of all with the stub templates second to last). The templates {{uncategorised}} and {{improve categories}} clearly relate to categories, so if they are not to go with other maintenance templates before the article content, the logical place for them is where the categories are - or where they would be, if there aren't any. So this revision is correct. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:58, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Categories, Template talk:Improve categories, Wikipedia talk:Twinkle. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:22, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

I attempted to remove {{Improve categories}} from MOS:ORDER today but was reverted. I am not comfortable leaving {{Improve categories}} as the second to last item with only a 2:1 consensus, as this is a policy, and that doesn't really take into account the WP:SILENT consensus of Twinkle doing it this way for 3 years and thousands of edits without objection. I'd prefer to just remove {{Improve categories}} and {{Uncategorized}} and go back to the status quo ante of ambiguity. I think our other option is to RFC this but I am not sure it is worth the effort. Thoughts? –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:13, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

RfC: Category maintenance templates in MOS:ORDER

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

.

The maintenance templates {{Improve categories}} and {{Uncategorized}} are unique because their documentation pages state they are allowed to be placed at the bottom of articles. Should {{Improve categories}} and {{Uncategorized}} be included in MOS:ORDER? If so, where?

• Option A. Do not include either.
• Option B. Include only {{Improve categories}}. Include it second to last (below "Categories")
• Option C. Include only {{Improve categories}}. Include it last (below "Stub templates")
• Option D. Include {{Improve categories}} and {{Uncategorized}}. Include them second to last.
• Option E. Include {{Improve categories}} and {{Uncategorized}}. Include them last.
• Option F. Include {{Improve categories}} and {{Uncategorized}}. Include them second to last, with a note stating "(These can alternatively be placed with other maintenance templates before the article content)" as here

–Novem Linguae (talk) 02:37, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Option F added, to reflect current (recent) version of the page. PamD 09:27, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Survey

• Option C first choice, Option A second choice. I prefer Option C because this is where Twinkle has placed {{Improve categories}} without objections since May 2019. I believe there to be a WP:SILENT consensus for this, since no one has objected until now. I also think Option A is fine. Option A was the status quo for over a decade, until I changed it on 2021-12-24, and then it was changed again on 2022-02-16. This is a guideline page, and this has implications for re-writing user scripts and editing the location of tags in thousands of articles, so it is important we get this right. I do not think {{Uncategorized}} should be included in MOS:ORDER at all because Twinkle places it at the top, and the documentation page for the template says it can go either at the top or the bottom. Trying to say {{Uncategorized}} goes in one spot when it is allowed in two spots could be confusing. –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:37, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
• Option C per Novem Linguae. ― Qwerfjkltalk 07:04, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
• Option F, second choice Option D. Strongly oppose Options C and E, which contradict the statement at {{stub}} that "Place a stub template at the very end of the article, after the "External links" section, any navigation templates, and the category tags." (Italics for emphasis included on that page: the phrase is also a link to WP:ORDER here).
  Twinkle should implement the rules, not dictate them: if Twinkle is getting it wrong, change Twinkle.
  {{uncategorized}} and {{improve categories}} need to be in the same place, because they are saying the same thing, in whole or in part, and also because an editor often needs to change the former to the latter (eg after adding Category:Living people and birth date cat).
  The template description for {{Improve categories}} says: "It is recommended that this template be placed at the bottom of the page, where readers will look for the categories."; the description for {{Uncategorized}} says "It is recommended that this template be placed at the bottom of the page, where readers will look for the categories, although it is a somewhat common practice among some editors to put it at the top." ( I haven't checked the histories to see whether either of those statements has been controversial, though the talk pages of both templates show attempts to discuss placement over the years.) We need to ensure that we are consistent. I think that "at the bottom" in those descriptions means "among the stuff at the bottom of the page" (just as "at the top" means "in among the stuff which is above the content of the page"), as distinct from the "at the very end" used in the stub descriptions. PamD 09:41, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
• Option F/D per PamD. MB 15:12, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
• F/D PamD has it bang on. "At the bottom" does not mean "literally last of all, after absolutely everything else". Consider MOS:APPENDIX: if the phrase "they should appear at the bottom of an article" were interpreted that way, the refs would be after the categories and stub templates. But nobody does that, because they understand that it means "after the article's prose". These two tags relate to categories; logically, therefore, they should be placed with the categories. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:33, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
• Option A; second choice option F – Especially on pages that use multiple maintenance templates (particularly pages that use {{multiple issues}}), there's no reason to separate {{improve categories}} and {{uncategorized}} from the rest of them. (For the purpose of clarification, I should note that I understand option A to entail a literal reading of the page, meaning these two templates would be grouped with the rest of the maintenance templates.) Graham (talk) 05:59, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

  Comment Option A, silently specifying that both these templates go only at the top, would require the documentation of both templates to be amended, for full consistency. PamD 07:02, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

  Certainly. I understand option A to entail consensus to conform the template documentation to the newly amended guideline. Graham (talk) 07:23, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

  Just noting for the record that I envision Option A (the status quo ante of ambiguity) being a return to ambiguity. That could be a good compromise option if the community is uninterested in tackling this issue. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:54, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

  The status quo ante existed because what was a long-standing practice, as recognized by the template documentation, contradicted the MOS. The solution, of course, is to either (a) modify the MOS or (b) enforce the MOS, preferably after consensus for the existing MOS provision is reaffirmed. If there is a consensus to neither add an exception for these two templates to the MOS nor make any changes to the provision, that is necessarily a consensus to reaffirm it.

  I can understand the view that the MOS shouldn't take a position on the matter. I can also understand the MOS not taking a position on the matter as a result of a lack of consensus. I would disagree with both of those outcomes, but I can understand the motivation behind them. I do not, however, know who could possibly support the position that template documentation and the MOS should directly contradict one another. While it is inconceivable to me, if that is a view that we think one could possibly have, we should have an "option G" to accommodate this. I imagine that such an option would add language saying that, for the purpose of MOS:ORDER, {{improve categories}} and {{uncategorized}} don't necessarily constitute "maintenance / dispute tags". Graham (talk) 06:10, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

• Option A and amend the documentation of those two templates, and (I'm honestly sorry to even be proposing this) amend Twinkle's behavior as well. If we actually wish people to notice that an article needs categories, then we should recommend these banners go at the top of an article, where they'll be noticed. Ajpolino (talk) 00:04, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

  Other banners that apply only to a section, as opposed to the entire article, go in that section. These apply only to the categorization of the article, so it is logical that they go in that "section". Furthermore, these banners don't need to be widely seen to be effective, editors monitor the category and find/fix them that way. category:Uncategorized from March 2022 is the only month that exists, all prior months have been zeroed and the category deleted - evidence that there is no "notice" problem. MB 00:25, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

  The edit I've just made to The Sinks shows how helpful it is to have these templates, both of them, adjacent to the categories. I added one category, removed {{uncategorised}}, added {{improve categories}}. If I was on my phone (and I often edit on my phone) I would only be able to edit one section at a time, so this would have been very cumbersome if I had needed to edit top and bottom of the article in two separate edits. PamD 08:51, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Paragraph guidance

I find the current guidance on the use of paragraphs rather vague and unhelpful. I was looking at several online grammar guides, such as these [1] [2] [3] [4] and there seems to be a broad consensus that paragraphs should consist of information related to a single central topic, idea, or theme, and if the topic or theme changes, then there should be a new paragraph (i.e. you don't bunch random unrelated topics in the same paragraph).

I propose that the current guidance be altered to reflect the consensus. G-13114 (talk) 06:03, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm thinking that "layout" is not the place to talk about content. Then again, I'm not enough of a Wikipedia manual of style maven to know where else it would go. Perhaps Wikipedia:Writing better articles#Paragraphs. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:32, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow your reasoning. How is guidance on how to structure information into paragraphs not relevant to the layout? G-13114 (talk) 16:00, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Layout deals with "the arrangement of visual elements on a page." In contrast, writing style "is the choice of words, sentence structure, and paragraph structure, used to convey the meaning effectively." Hence, my suggestion of Wikipedia:Writing better articles#Paragraphs as the place for content structure guidance. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 18:32, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

See here. Please revert or improve as needed. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 15:48, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Portal bar vs Authority control

Since {{Authority control}} is a navbar, it looks out of place when placed after a {{portal bar}}. I suggest that their order be swapped around, as is often the practice. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:21, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

There was a similar proposal last July at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Layout/Archive 14#Portal bar and authority control which raised some principles (order of internal vs. external links) and different alternative arrangements. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:24, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Looks like the way forward is to delete {{Authority control}} templates from the articles. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:50, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Short description before hatnote?

I noticed Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section#Short description before hatnote? so cross-referencing in an effort for future readers not to get lost... --Joy [shallot] (talk) 21:34, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Further differentiation

The text at MOS:NOTSEEALSO says that links to ambiguation pages should not be included in See Also sections, but it includes an exception in parentheses: "(unless used in a disambiguation page for further disambiguation)". The link for the text "further disambiguation" is unhelpful and even confusing. Perhaps it is meant to point to MOS:DABSEEALSO, which is a subsection of the page. In any case, this link doesn't seem to clarify what is meant by the phrase "further disambiguation". It might be better to not link to anything at all and let the phrase stand by itself. The guidance that needs clarifying is whether it's ok to include links to disambiguation pages in the See Also section of articles. In general the answer is no. However, it's generally ok to link to disambiguation pages in the See Also section of other disambiguation pages. The way it's written doesn't make that entirely clear. As written it sounds like this is only ok if for "further differentiation". I think any link included in the See Also section of a disambiguation would be for "further disambiguation", so why not just say "(unless used in a disambiguation page)". Or maybe there should be a clarification that is not in parentheses, such as: "It's generally acceptable to link to disambiguation pages in the See Also section of disambiguation pages)". 15:09, 25 July 2022 (UTC) Coastside (talk) 15:09, 25 July 2022 (UTC)