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.

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)

Deprecating the "In popular culture" heading[edit]

FYI: Pointer to relevant topic elsewhere.

Please comment on the proposal at:

 — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  09:50, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Placement of {{good article}}[edit]

Where should {{good article}} be placed in WP:ORDER? (Ping Rjwilmsi for AWB-coding) According to the template it should be above #5 in "¶Footer". Can it be added to the list? (tJosve05a (c) 01:21, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

{{good article}} uses {{top icon}}, which during the course of 26-27 March 2015 was altered to use the new <indicator>...</indicator> feature (see Template talk:Top icon#Page status indicators and most subsequent threads). This means that as far as accessibility is concerned, the placement of {{good article}} is no longer critical: the page as served always has the HTML for the GA icon just before the main page heading no matter where it is placed in the page source. It emits categories, so its placement relative to other category-emitting templates (as well as the actual cats) is still significant. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:01, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
The template documentation for good article says "This template should be placed at the bottom of the article before defaultsort, categories and interwikis." Also, if an article is now a good article, it can be given the good article badge on Wikidata. Jason Quinn (talk) 16:06, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Duplicate wikilink[edit]

#Section templates and summary style shows "references to such articles may be placed immediately after the section heading for that section, provided this does not duplicate a wikilink in the text." The last part is redundant and causes confusion. At first I thought that it was referring to something different from WP:REPEATLINK. SLBedit (talk) 14:33, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Seems clear to me. It just means that if a link naturally appears in the section it should not also be given by a {{see also}} or similar template. This is the same guidance as for links in the See also section, e.g. WP:NOTSEEALSO. If the links occur naturally as wikilinks within article text then there is no need to provide additional links in a See also section or hatnote. It is redundant in that it says mostly the same thing but many of our guidelines do this.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 14:59, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Okay. I looked at Wikipedia and it is not respecting that guideline, in three sections. SLBedit (talk) 15:05, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Agree with JohnBlackburne. I've been fixing these quite a few myself. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 17:19, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
What if the duplicate link links to a section? Should we keep it? SLBedit (talk) 00:05, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
And what if the {{see also}} repeats a link in a navigation box but does not repeat in the article's body? SLBedit (talk) 05:28, 29 June 2015 (UTC)