Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Embedded lists

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Shortcut:

Collapsible tables and lists[edit]

Wikipedia:Collapsible tables, MOS:COLLAPSE and Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(tables)#Collapsible_tables. When should lists be collapsed? SilkTork *YES! 13:01, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

RFC: restructuring of the Manual of Style[edit]

Editors may be interested in this RFC, along with the discussion of its implementation:

Should all subsidiary pages of the Manual of Style be made subpages of WP:MOS?

It's big; and it promises huge improvements. Great if everyone can be involved. NoeticaTea? 00:33, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Boldface against MoS#boldface[edit]

Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Embedded_lists#.22Children.22 seems to be giving the ok for boldface to be used in prose. New York City and the three building titles.

Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(text_formatting)#Boldface does not say this is ok, as well as the article the example is taken from, Skyscraper#History_of_tallest_skyscrapers, currently having New York City without boldface.

It seems to me that the prose and list examples merely repeat the text and are boldened in both, something that I am sure I would have removed boldening from if I had known it still was there, as I always took it to simply be for emphasis in the lists MoS so that people could see the differences.

In the discussions that took place in 2006 there seem to only be two people discussing, one says "I did not say that it is OK to bold the items in the list because we have other guidelines that say we only bold the name of the article itself", yet the change was put through with boldface, against MoS [1].

As it stands now there is nothing in MoS to say that boldface can be used in this manner. I am going to edit out the boldface as it is against MoS#boldface and appears to be a relic of changes made in 2006. If MoS is changed to include embedded lists, then fine. As it stands now it does not support this boldface usage. Chaosdruid (talk) 15:01, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

That might have been a bit too soon: the top of WP:EMBED says "Please ensure that any edits to this page reflect consensus." MOS:BOLD#Boldface is actually ambiguous on this. I have posted on its talk page to point out the ambiguity and ask for its resolution. --Stfg (talk) 11:24, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Last sentence in intro[edit]

I think the last sentence in the introduction, "Too much statistical data is against policy", would be better expressed/more grammatically correct as "Having too much statistical data is against policy" or some variation. I didn't want to just suddenly change an MoS page without asking/telling anyone, so... what does anyone else think? —Ugncreative Usergname (talk) 01:36, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Good point. Adjusted. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:24, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Selection criteria[edit]

Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lists#Selection criteria. --Marc Kupper|talk 20:00, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Discussion on when embedded statistic lists may be excessive[edit]

Discussion at: RfC: When is the presentation of statistics, such as with Weather box and Climate chart, excessive?. This concerns use of {{Weather box}} and {{Climate chart}} in most settlement articles, down to small town and village level. SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:09, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Definition of an embedded list[edit]

The lead currently defines embedded lists as:

"Embedded lists are lists of links, data or information that are either included in the text of an article or appended to the end of an article."
My understanding is that there are only two basic types of lists: stand-alone and embedded. That current definition of an embedded list doesn't include a list that's part of a prose article yet not part of the actual text of the article, e.g., a list in an image, a caption, an infobox, a navbox, etc. I think the first sentence should read something like:
"Embedded lists are lists of links, data or information that appear anywhere within an article that is primarily prose, i.e., embedded lists are any lists that are not stand-alone lists." Sparkie82 (tc) 00:51, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
I think the line between embedded and stand alone is purposely murky. I've seen the 50/50 or 40/60 split enough to know that what is a stand alone list and what is a prose article isn't always clear. But with that, I don't see any objection to Sparkie's wording. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 05:33, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

see also sections are not mini-outlines of the article[edit]

With regard to the guideline that "the 'See also' section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes", let me point to this discussion: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Outlines#outline sections (not articles). Thanks. Fgnievinski (talk) 04:17, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Currently the Bulleted and numbered lists section includes a list:

  • Use numbers rather than bullets only if:
    • a need to refer to the elements by number may arise;
    • the sequence of the items is critical; or
    • the numbering has some independent meaning, for example in a listing of musical tracks.

Since these are sentence fragments, should the punctuation and linkers be removed for brevity (and to set an example)?

  • Use numbers rather than bullets only if:
    • a need to refer to the elements by number may arise
    • the sequence of the items is critical
    • the numbering has some independent meaning, (e.g. a list of musical tracks)

Note that grammar is not my specialty... T. Shafee (Evo&Evo) (talk) 09:45, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Contradictory statements in "Related topics (navigational lists)"[edit]

The section is contradictory and unhelpful. It says:

"See also" lists and "Related topics" lists are valuable navigational tools (...) links in these sections should have been featured in the article. (...) As a general rule, the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes.

2001:8A0:4304:8101:E981:3FC7:F236:8782 (talk) 12:28, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

  • The rule reads: "As a general rule, the 'See also' section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body" Am I really expected to read the entire text of the article, multiple times to look for that thing that is related to the other thing I am reading about. It makes no sense to remove them because we have this hard rule. Look here at this article where the three most common related topics are removed based on this rule. Now I have to read the article multiple times looking for the name of the related subject. I can see not repeating things if the article is a single paragraph. Just as the lede repeats the main text, the "see also" should repeat certain related subjects that are present in the main text. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:57, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

"See also" content[edit]

As the issue may concern the implementation of MOS:EMBED, editors at this talk page are requested to please join us at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Layout#"See also" content for a discussion concerning whether it is acceptable practice to link to Wikipedia templates in the "See also" section. Thanks in advance. -Thibbs (talk) 15:07, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Links within definition lists?[edit]

If you look at the article for The Crucible, there is a giant description list with links to the main articles for the character being described. I know, generally, headers should not contain links. Are these considered headers as far as this rule goes? - Dunc0029 (talk) 22:37, 28 July 2015 (UTC)