Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Layout

Major flaw in WP:NOTSEEALSO

There is a major flaw in the consideration of "See also". This manual of style has a WP:NOTSEEALSO which states that if there is a blue wiki-link then that referred article should not be in the see also.

The end result is that a major, significant "see also" candidate is disqualified but a moderate or minor "see also" candidate appears.

It is easy to miss a wiki-link but the see also section is very prominent. This leads to many fights on Wikipedia. In the recent 2-3 weeks, I have seen fights about the Humboldt Broncos bus crash and Southwest Airlines Flight 1380. (The bus crash was where more than half of the hockey team was killed in a bus crash and a related Broncos team had a fatal bus crash years ago, which was the see also candidate. The Southwest Airlines incident was very similar to another Southwest incident where a fan blade tore through the fuselage and the plane was just a few numbers different in registration number).

In both examples, the see also entries that survived are remotely related but the single example that did not survive the see also debate (because of this MOS cited) was a very similar incident that has been cited many times in news reports.

I propose that if there is a very strongly related incident or article, the WP:NOTSEEALSO does not apply. This would help the reader. Vanguard10 (talk) 19:15, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose "See also" sections may display something more prominently but to the same degree demote the importance of what is being displayed. "See also" sections are meant to be brief, limiting how thoroughly connections between related topics can be investigated. In the case of the Humboldt Broncos bus crash, two deadly tragedies are very strongly culturally linked, and much discussion has erupted concerning both of them at once. It is my belief, as well as that of others, that this discussion is significant enough to be covered in the article. However, the most we can do for "See also" is devote a single sentence to a topic; entire paragraphs, naturally, are prohibited down there. Therefore, the increased prominence of a link comes at the cost of further potential coverage or attempts to tie it into the main topic of the article's discussion. WP:NOTSEEALSO is intended to reduce redundancy; if something can be in both places at once, in "See also" and further up, then it can be further up in much greater detail, and deserves to be. In which case it should be prominent enough that a "See also" link is not needed, and would therefore be redundant. In a way, "See also" sections are trying to, as much as possible, eliminate the need for their own existence.This is not me trying to WP:FORUMSHOP or WP:BLUDGEON; I am merely reiterating here to help kick-start the discussion, as well as so people don't have to head back to Talk:Humboldt Broncos bus crash#See also, which was the main impetus for this discussion here. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 05:06, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

The above oppose might really be a support. Zeke seems to not want complete reliance on see also. Rather than only vote, I propose mostly discussion. Zeke seems to suggest that in addition to see also, an important related article should be linked within the body of the article. I agree. That would seem like a "support" to me. Vanguard10 (talk) 03:17, 24 April 2018 (UTC) Stricken by me. Vanguard10 (talk) 05:00, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

First, please take it easy with the indentations. I've fixed them for you.

Second, that is not what I said. I'm saying if it can be in both places, then it should only be in one, and that's not the "See also" section. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 03:27, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. I've stricken my comments. If in the text, you mention that it "should be prominent enough". In that case, perhaps WP:NOTSEEALSO should not ban a "see also" list if there is a mere blue link but if there is a blue link and paragraph? In other words, the mention in the text must be blue-link and significant enough, as defined by having a separate paragraph. You see, I brought up the topic for discussion, not a simple support/oppose vote. Thank you for your idea. Vanguard10 (talk) 05:00, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

• Alternative. I think the policy should be changed to say that if the "See also" section contains many instances of a certain category (e.g. other flights that crashed in the same way) then it should include all more significant instances of that category, even if they are also blue-linked in the article. This would avoid the problem of a reader perusing the "See also" section missing the most important instances. CapitalSasha ~ talk 17:08, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

I also think CapitalSasha's comments are a support because of the idea that a very significant instance can be blue-linked in the article AND also appear in the "see also" section. Vanguard10 (talk) 03:17, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose The section is see also, not see again. A proper see also section very often only contains lists of... because these, while relevant to many articles, are very difficult to link to in prose w/o a clunky piping. Primergrey (talk) 01:36, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Why is is "proper" to exclude highly relevant repeat links in See also? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 18:17, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Because the see also section is for relevant blue links that do not appear in the article. The also in see also means just that. Also, in addition to, further all indicators of novel, not repeated, content. Primergrey (talk) 15:23, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

You state a conclusion, not a rationale. What is the rationale for making it difficult for a reader to find a "very strongly related incident or article" in the See also section? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:59, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

The conclusion, or consensus, has already been arrived at. The unambiguous wording as to the purpose of a see also section as, I must assume, agreed upon by the community. Speaking of which, as this proposal would significantly alter a long-standing guideline and would affect millions of articles, an RFC might be the way to go. Primergrey (talk) 18:27, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

"We've always done it that way" is not a particularly strong argument. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 00:37, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

There actually was an RFC last year [[1]]. Rejected with a "strong consensus". Primergrey (talk) 18:33, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

"We've looked at this recently and rejected it" is a winning argument. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 00:37, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

• Support especially on long articles readers look at selected sections and may well miss the link altogether. I think it is more important to emphasize the most useful links than to worry about a duplicated link. Rjensen (talk) 02:01, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support because it benefits the reader. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 18:17, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Having a laundry list of repeated links that compete with and obscure the links that do not appear in the article is no benefit to any reader. Primergrey (talk) 15:23, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

What you say is certainly true. However, it doesn't speak to the proposal to make it clear that a "very strongly related incident or article" (not a "laundry list") can be repeated. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:59, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

If a link is that vital to the topic, first, it will probably be explained in the article, and second, it is sure to have the link in the lead, one in the body, and one in the infobox (if any). You are basically proposing a link synopsis section. Primergrey (talk) 18:27, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

First of all, it isn't my proposal. Secondly, yes, the proponent is advocating for a synopsis of "strongly related" links. I think that is a good idea but, as you point out above, the community has recently rejected a similar proposal. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 00:37, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

My mistake about the OP. Apologies for that. Primergrey (talk) 01:58, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose WP:NOTSEEALSO already states, "As a general rule, the "See also" section should not repeat links ..." It is exactly that, a general rule that usually applies, not a rule that must be blindly followed. Use common sense. WP:IAR is always the case anyways, even if it wasn't already clear in calling it a "general rule".—Bagumba (talk) 15:51, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Linking to Commons - now deprecated?

Re [2] and the removal of Commons link boxes.

Has the easily-recognised Commons link box now been deprecated in favour of an indistinct listing in the packed LH sidebar? Presumably this is now populated by some incomprehensible bit of wikidata. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:43, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Geographic boxes

Hi. I would like to propose that geographic navigation boxes (with links to surrounding neighborhoods, cities, communities, etc.) be allowed within the "Geography" section of any given article. Because of the way these boxes are laid out (showing directions as on a map), they would be helpful for visualizing the general relationship of one place with another. Thank you, and I am looking forward to hearing from you. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 20:21, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Can you point to an example, or sandbox one please? EEng 23:05, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Notice of RfC on single subsections

An issue related to single subsections, which watchers of this page may be interested in, is now up for discussion in an RfC which can be found at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#RfC on single subsections. Feel free to come and participate. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:21, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

See also - flag icons

I found a flag icon farm in the "See also" section of Flag of Tuva, which I've removed per WP:ICONDECORATION. Is this something that has been discussed before, and should it be specifically allowed or disallowed? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 01:32, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't think we've had any discussion regarding flag icons in See also sections. This is a general layout guideline and I'm of the opinion that it shouldn't speak to specifics such as this. Regarding the specifics, doesn't WP:ICONDECORATION already cover this subject? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 17:24, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

OK, thanks. - BilCat (talk) 23:19, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

LAYOUTEL

Hello, is there a purpose for specifying at MOS:LAYOUTEL that "External links" must always be plural even if only a single link is added? Kind regards, Cavalryman V31 (talk) 18:22, 9 September 2018 (UTC).

I don't know the historic answer, but here is one I just made up: consistency. That and the risk that the editor who adds the second link won't change the heading to the plural. Okay, that's two I just made up. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 02:13, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

So we apply the English language incorrectly and assume incompetence, they seem two very poor reasons. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 22:04, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps. But keep in mind that assuming incompetence does have its place. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 02:23, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Not so sure it's applying anything "incorrectly". If, for example, there were only one featured article candidate, that wouldn't suddenly make the page Featured article candidates mis-titled. Primergrey (talk) 02:53, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Same as for "References" - if we started with it in the singular people wouldn't notice and/or bother to change it when adding another, so having it plural all the time works fine. PamD 08:20, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Navigation templates to the bottom

I'm looking over the layout guideline, and I don't see it explicitly mentioned, but navboxes are supposed to be positioned at the very bottom of articles, correct? Abductive (reasoning) 18:14, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Not necessarily. They can be placed to the side as they are at the top of Feminism. Otherwise yes, they generally go at the bottom. If it's a stub, technically the stub template is supposed to be at the very bottom, below the navboxes, but I don't normally do that personally, because I think it looks quite stupid. GMG^talk 18:21, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

@Abductive: To specify, horizontal navbars belong at the bottom of articles, but vertical navboxes can be placed within the body of an article (as in Jesus#Life and teachings in the New Testament; though I move them if they are in the "See also" section). See MOS:SECTIONORDER, though like GreenMeansGo I disagree with certain elements of that, as I find it illogical that items that appear/display at the top of an article (coordinates, and good and featured article markers) should be placed at the bottom. I favor a consistent layout, with (as long as it's logical) the same elements in the same place throughout Wikipedia articles. —DocWatson42 (talk) 03:24, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Where does it say that stub templates go below the horizontal navigation templates? Abductive (reasoning) 03:48, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

It says it in MOS:ORDER, where the stub templates are at the end of the "Bottom matter" list. It's reallly useful for stub templates to be listed in one consistent place as it makes it easier for stub-sorting and reduces the chance that someone will add a specific stub tag without removing {{stub}}. PamD 08:00, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Why do links to sister projects appear in "External links" rather than "see also?"

THis is a thing this manual mentions, but doesnt explain the reasoning behind this guidance. Might I ask why is that so and why are Wiktionary and Wikisource exceptions to this rule? (but not eg Commons) 2A02:A317:2241:7A00:9F4:3E9A:A783:B4FC (talk) 00:31, 4 November 2018 (UTC)