Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Layout/Archive 3

Question
Which layout is preferable for the "Standard appendices", this one or this one? Thank you. --Phenylalanine (talk) 03:10, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It has been more than 24 hours since you posted and no one who actually knows anything has responded to your query. So, I'll try:
 * As near as I can tell at this point (I'm new around these parts myself), the answer to your question is "(c) none of the above." If you have some time to kill you can peruse the discussion above about "Notes," "References," and "Notes and References" to get a feel for the lack of consensus on a preferred format for those sections.
 * That said, I suggest that featured articles (such as Palazzo Pitti) provide examples of some of the alternative "best practices." Additional illustrative featured articles include Starship Troopers and Jane Austen. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 13:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * IMO the first one is preferable, but not perfect. The ==Notes== section should [probably be named ==Footnotes== and] not have any full-length references in it.  Items 10-11 and 14-21 should be in the ==References== section.  Also, it cites two different authors with the last name of Chiarini, so it's important to identify to the reader which book the "Chiarini" short notes actually refer to.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * In consensus there is no "preferable" layout for the Standard appendix, we have multiple preferences. So, in a way, the preference is up to you. ChyranandChloe (talk) 03:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Caps
Please stop capping talk page discussions on guideline and policy pages. Doing so renders the page unsearchable. If the discussion has run its course, it can be archived; that is the purpose of archives. Capping other people's commentary is disruptive and means one cannot come back to the page to search for particular comments. Please remove the caps and use archives as intended. I've already uncapped comments that I made, and that were capped by someone else, and now they have been recapped. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 12:27, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, I thought you meant that the problem with capping arose after the section was archived. I still think the benefit of keeping the page clean outweighs the cost of losing the ability to searh. But I'll defer to you on this one. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 14:15, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You can always use a subsection to break things up. ===Arbitrary break 1=== makes editing easier while keeping everything visible.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:25, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

"Notes and references" needs more prominence
My edit with the summary "'Notes and references' - needs to be made clear, as it's often ignored" was reverted on the basis "Redundant, the page already states that they may be combined". My whole point is that it needs to be emphasised as it does not stand out and gets easily lost. This is obviously the case because of all the articles that fail to follow it. I suggest it is reinstated for the reason I gave.  Ty  04:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with you that, somewhere, more guidance should be given regarding the sections containing citations and comments. However, as you may note at Wikipedia talk:Layout, the folks on this page are currently discussing leaving that task to other pages. I respectfully suggest that we should resolve that question before we spend much more time discussing how we should modify this page. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 14:10, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * We were actually going to address that in right after we get though with the General format section. Don't worry, I believe your proposal will be implemented right after we finish delving through all the other issues; such as placing emphasis on an Outline oriented method of referencing or a Section oriented method of referencing — and in your case a Combined reduction method of referencing. ChyranandChloe (talk) 03:16, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Disagree; the text belongs primarily at WP:CITE, and if anything, should be briefly summarized here (as it already is). Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 03:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Once again, CC, you use the word "we." That would be you and who else? As far as I know "we" are talking about (a) removing the Links section and (b) changing the text in the Notes and References sections to a very brief summary (supported by links to articles with more depth). At some point I suggested that, in the future, we might want to look at turning the Images and Dividing line sections into subsections of another section. You, and you alone, then proposed a substantial re-write based on that suggestion. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

At the time, we were not simultaneously discussing the Referencing sections and the General format section, so the next option would be to do it right right after the General format section was completed. Nevertheless, you are correct, Butwhatdoiknow, and as you stated "we should resolve that question before we spend much more time discussing how we should modify this page", please go ahead and start the section. ChyranandChloe (talk) 03:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

References & controversial issues
Could someone look at this sentence... I'm surprised we make this recommendation. "If you are dealing with controversial issues, it is useful to point out which sources take which stance, and maybe separate the links by proponents and critics." I don't see how this would help a controversial article just as creating a separate pro / con article structure would not help. This statement seems out of place and while not exactly the same, it could rub against WP:NPOV, Words to avoid, Pro and con lists, and Template:Criticism-section. Morphh  (talk) 2:32, 06 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I can't believe that's in here, don't know how it came to be here, and needs to go. Sheesh.  That's why we need to stop content overlap on guideline pages and adopt a minimalist approach.  Who knows how that got there, embarrassing.  Keeping up with this page is becoming a chore. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 02:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Looks like it was added way back in May 2006 by RockOfVictory. It should be removed.  Such arrangement would be based on editor opinion with regard to the source's "bias", which seems inappropriate.  This could have issues in areas like Poisoning the well, Guilt by association, or just a pejorative implication.   Morphh   (talk) 3:11, 06 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Some of these MoS pages are just badly out of control and out of sync with other pages, and I'm constantly battling to keep them from expanding and becoming worse. Two of us agree it should go; third editor who concurs should just delete it.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 03:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I concur. It's deleted. ChyranandChloe (talk) 04:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm glad that you fixed that. I suspect that the editor may have been thinking of WP:EL, where that practice is relatively common. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:33, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Images
You should always be watchful not to overwhelm an article with images by adding more just because you can. Unless clearly better or more appropriate images are available, the existing images in the article should be left in place.

Images should ideally be spread evenly within the article, and relevant to the sections they are located in. All images should also have an explicative caption. An image should not overwhelm the screen; 300px may be considered a limit, as this is approximately half Wikipedia's text space's width on a 800x600 screen. It is a good idea to try to maintain visual coherence by aligning the width of images and templates on a given page.

When placing images, be careful not to stack too many of them within the lead, or within a single section to avoid bunching up several section edit links in some browsers. Generally, if there are so many images in a section that they strip down into the next section at 1024x768 screen resolution, that probably means either that the section is too short, or that there are too many images.

If an article has many images, so many, in fact, that they lengthen the page beyond the length of the text itself (this also applies if a template like taxobox or Judaism is already stretching the page), you can try to use a gallery, but the ideal solution might be to create a page or category combining all of them at Wikimedia Commons and use a relevant template (commons, commonscat, commons-inline or commonscat-inline) and link to it instead, so that further images are readily found and available when the article is expanded.

Horizontal rule
The use of horizontal rules ( : I hope this is helpful. If you want there can be more description on changes, just specify. ChyranandChloe (talk) 02:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Body sections to Body, section is unnecessary and is inconsistent with the contents of the h2 section (we don't describe what sections belong in the body of the article, simply how it is formatted or arranged: which is another source of instruction creep not addressed in the current draft).
 * Standard appendices and descriptions to Standard appendix, the title can be simplified as the description is implied (what is the point of the section if it doesn't contain content of descriptions)
 * Notes to Inline citation, because referencing can be done by at least two significantly different methods, Inline citation or Inline notes is more descriptive of its contents without causing confusion (this is where it laps the most into WP:CITE)
 * References to Non-inline citation, since referencing can be done by at least two methods, this reduces confusion between the two sections (this also laps into WP:CITE)
 * With apologies, I will be a bit more blunt: The chances of getting folks to agree on a wholesale revision to this article are next to nothing. Instead, you should focus on one change at at time. For example, your proposal to move "Links" into the "Body" section. I'll start a conversation regarding that change. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 23:37, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I never implied that "a wholesale revision to this article are next to nothing"; in fact in the opening paragraph I stated that the "There have been several liberal changes". Nevertheless, thanks you for your initiative we'll take one issue at time, off the top. ChyranandChloe (talk) 03:33, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The phrase "are next to nothing" was intended to modify "chances," not "revision." So I didn't mean to suggest that you were in any way less than forthright regarding the scope of your proposed changes. I regret that my poor phrasing caused you to think otherwise. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 02:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

The Links section
ChyranandChloe proposes to move the Links section in this article into a subsection of the Body section. CC's reasoning is that the Links text is more about how and when (rather than where). I'll go CC one further and, for the same reason, propose that the Links section be deleted altogether. Your thoughts? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 23:37, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If this is the only consensus, then yes — there's a significant amount of instruction creep. Though it may be possible to revise the section to allow it to conform. ChyranandChloe (talk) 03:33, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The page as it is now is basically correct, and I've seen no proposal to change it yet that I agree with. It's unclear if you're proposing deleting links from your draft (which I oppose) or from the current page (which I also oppose). Sandy Georgia (Talk) 03:54, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The proposal to delete the entire Links section from the current page is mine, not CCs. While I agree with Sandy that the Links section is "correct," that is not the issue. The issue is whether the Layout article should contain instructions regarding how and when to use links (as opposed to having that information in another article, such as Manual of Style (links)). I note that, on July 29, Sandy decried "instruction creep" entering the Layout article. I think that what I am proposing removes a section that is all about instruction and says nothing about layout. Am I wrong? If not then simply saying "it has always been there" would not seem to be a very strong argument for keeping the Links section in the Layout article. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 12:18, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Since this was added on to an earlier (rewrite) proposal, it was hard to tell what it referred to. I don't disagree that links are out of place in this article; it was just unclear to me if I had to go re-read that entire proposal (which I don't support) to sort this out. I had no idea how to interpret "move the Links section in this article into a subsection of the Body section", since it appeared related to the other proposal. On the other hand, moving "Links" to the "Body" section doesn't make a lot of sense, since Links are also used in the lead.  I guess the question is why Wikilinking is included here at all.  Is that what you're asking?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:07, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is exactly what I am asking. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If it's confined to the bottom of the page, it doesn't bother me as much, but I'm still unsure it's needed. On the other hand, I am loathe to completely delete a section without reading the full archives to understand how it came to be included here, especially considering other pages may link to it.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:49, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * For now, I just reorganized to move those miscellaneous sections to below the basic layout info; it doesn't bother me as much if it's done that way (and now we have the silly horizontal deprecated section out of the way, at the bottom of the page). Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:12, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I am wondering why you didn't discuss this change on the talk page and seek consensus first. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Moving a section is controversial now? Adding links to the main pages that discuss items, rather than duplicating text, is controversial?  hmmm.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:49, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I just recall that in the past you have spoken out against "fiddling" with articles and your changes look like fiddling to me. So I am a little confused regarding when it is appropriate to be bold and when consultation is the better course. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 17:07, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The "fiddling" I've mentioned before (I believe on other pages) involve major rewrites (and not always to accurate new text). I juggled text around, added main and see also links to tops of sections, and removed some text that was redundant to other sections.  I didn't rewrite anything or add any new text or delete any major sections, and as I said above, I would hesitate to entirely delete or rename a section, in case other pages link to it and without reading the archives here to understand why "Links" are included.  Do you disagree with any of my edits? Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:59, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Issue no. 1 - O.k. then, I'll feel free to juggle text and to remove what I consider to be redundant text without first seeking consensus. And when I want to make changes such as turning "comments" into "order of appendices," I will not consider that I have re-written anything and I will not seek consensus for that sort of change either.
 * Issue no. 2 - If saving the link is that important perhaps we could delete all the text under that heading and replace that text with a link to Manual of Style (links).
 * Issue no. 3 - Will you be reading the archives to satisfy yourself regarding the reason the links section appears in this article?
 * Issue no. 4 - I haven't done an exhaustive review of the changes you made but the review I have done suggests that they improve the article. Remember, I am a self-admited fiddler. So I certainly can't complain when someone else engages in the same behavior. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 21:33, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

It took you nine tries to accomplish your edits SandyGeorge, please use the preview: this unnecessarily fills the history. For an article as sensitive as this, please post what edits you are going to make before you make them: acting as autonomously as you did does not show a healthy respect or regard for your colleges involved in the WP:LAYOUT draft.

This section is not about our policy involving how edits should be made on the WP:LAOUT — if you want, I believe it's possible create a section on how this policy page can be edited rather than going to near anarchy every time there is something new. I advocate the removal of the Links section as with Butwhatdoiknow on the grounds of unjustified instruction creep into the WP:MOS and WP:OVERLINK, unless SandyGeorge wishes to rewrite the section to conform the the WP:LAYOUT we can remove it on Monday (to give time for Tony or someone else if they want to become involved). No hard feelings SandyGeorge, I do not oppose your edits, but Butwhatdoiknow and I do not approve of an immediate implementation of a consensus in progress. ChyranandChloe (talk) 03:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No need to tell me to use the preview button; I intentionally edit in small bites, describing each step as I go, so that everyone can easily see exactly what I'm doing each step of the way. In fact, I dislike large chunk edits to policy and guidelines pages precisely because it's then hard to sort out what all was changed.  Since I have made no controversial edits, you can quite easily follow what I did by viewing the diffs.  I don't care one way or another if you delete the Links section (I only got it out of the way by moving it to the bottom), but as I've already stated, I strongly recommend that you view the archives and try to determine why it's there and if any other guideline page links to it before you delete it.  And, since the Links section has been on this page for months or years, I don't see the need to remove it quickly; allowing others time to weigh in before deleting an entire section won't hurt.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 03:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Going back in the page history, to 2005, gives a hint about the Links section; my guess is that it's just a hold-over from when the page had a significantly different structure and all of MoS was simpler. My recommendation (feel free to ignore) is that you leave the suggestion to delete it up here for at least two weeks, and then if no one objects, delete it and see what happens. But don't be surprised if someone who's been around Wiki longer than any of us then objects, and gives a reason why it's needed. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 03:52, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Very well, I prefer to simply compare the two edits and read the lengthy edit summery. I believe the purpose of the links section was to describe how sections are to be wikifyed. It does not hold strong relevance to Layout. I've compile this section into a show/hide, and now lets move on to the next section. ChyranandChloe (talk) 04:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Please don't cap discussion; it invalidates future searches in archives. I've removed the cap.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 04:15, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

On Thursday 7 August 2008 the Links section will be omitted, and briefly recompiled into the h3 If a section is a summary of another article (possible rename) to describe how articles are inherently connected. ChyranandChloe (talk) 04:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, if we're going to delete the Links section then I suggest that we should delete it. So, while I am not sure what "recomplied" means in this circumstance, I vote against moving the Links section descriptions to another part of Layout (regardless of the brevity of the text used for that purpose). Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 12:23, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Concur with Butwhatdoiknow; I can't decipher what is meant by "recompiled into the h3" blah, blah, blah. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 12:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the confusion. I thought that rather than completely removing the content we could briefly summarize it and place it in the section If a section is a summary of another article. Here's a draft of what I'm talking about:

As part of Wikifying articles, two square brackets should be placed around important words or phrases relevant to the context of the first occurrence within a h2 section; if the phrase or word does not match the name of the article, you may place the exact name of the article following by a pipe " " (shift forward slash, ) followed by the phrase you wish to see in the context of the article you are editing. This creates a hyperlink linking to other Wikipedia articles: Lennie and George came to a ranch near Soledad southeast of Salinas, California to "work up a stake".
 * which produces:

 Lennie and George came to a ranch near Soledad southeast of Salinas, California to "work up a stake".

When a section is a summary of another article, it should have an italicized link before the text (but after the section heading) referring to it. Templates are available for this operation:
 * which produces:




 * We could also rename the h3 from If a section is a summary of another article to Linking articles. How articles are links together can be an important part of Layout, since the method is that links should only be placed on important words or phrases at the first occurrence in a h2. This does not creep into the WP:MoS, since the WP:LAYOUT inherently describes where, rather the the how and what. This idea of providing a paragraph and two example is of course a proposal. ChyranandChloe (talk) 03:56, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) There are several problems with this proposal: If the idea was originally to remove discussion of linking from this page, because it's not part of Layout, this proposal is going in the wrong direction, even introducing a new definition of when to link that I've not encountered. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 04:20, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) The idea of completely removing discussion of "Links" from this page has some validity (and support on this page, and I wouldn't necessarily oppose it, although I advise caution), but incorporating them into a discussion involving only the body of articles, when links equally go in the lead section, doesn't.  Links apply to lead, body, and appendices (see also).
 * 2) Please take great care when renaming long-standing sections on guideline pages, as many other pages will have linked to them over time.
 * 3) Further, unsure where you're getting this wording, which is not univerally accurate and appears to be encouraging WP:OVERLINKing:  "As part of Wikifying articles, two square brackets should be placed around important words or phrases of the first occurrence within a h2 section ... "  We don't need to redefine linking on this page, and encouraging a new link in every h2 section need not be introduced here.


 * I agree with Sandy and renew my vote for removing, not moving (and revising), the Links section. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:44, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 1We are removing the Links section regardless, however I am unhappy with the loose of information. 2Renaming long standing sections is of no concern, simply add an anchor. 3WP:OVERLINK specifies how, layout specifies where: it's a proposal in which we can set precedence. It does not encourage overlinking: by the time a reader gets to the next h2, the two section either have enough divergence (if it doesn't it is possible the two sections should be subordinated as h3s and a h2 should be cast over the two) to not reuse the same words of phrases, or the section is long enough in which the reader should not have to double back and hunt for the link. WP:OVERLINK is specified as the main article in the case of disputes. No policy can be universally accurate to every context, and this isn't something so abstract and simple that we could apply a logical rule to it: it calls upon user judgement over relevance and importance. No hard feelings guys, if you really oppose it, I won't push it; but it would be helpful if you give a thoughtout reason of why. ChyranandChloe (talk) 21:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Agree with Sandy. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:29, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

To delete or not to delete

 * The proposal of rewriting the links section is continued below.

I'd prefer to keep the discussion here, thank you. (The jump leads to a discussion regarding the Images and Dividing sections.) The topic here is whether the Links sectioin should be removed or moved. If it is going to be removed then we don't need to spend any time talking about re-writing. I am voting for remove and, I think, so is Sandy (halfheartedly) and WhatamI. So far only CC is voting for moving. Anyone else care to chime in? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 22:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not voting for moving it. The discussion above involves removing the pre-7-August Links section; the one below discusses a potentially new rewritten one — we decided that the pre-7-August Links section contains instruction creep and that the best course of action would be remove it and to start with a new proposal. ChyranandChloe (talk) 02:59, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I am not sure who makes up the "we" in your statement that "we decided ... to start with a new proposal." As near as I can tell, you are the only person still advocating inicluding text regarding linking somewhere in the Layout article. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 14:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * We are deleting the Links section because it contains an unacceptable amount of instruction creep. I am advocating that we write a new section regarding where links are to be placed since that may be a hole in our policy page. My mistake, and sorry, I shouldn't have hooked the last statement onto the previous. I hope this clarifies. ChyranandChloe (talk) 05:08, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

New General format section
Images illustrate and provide visual context to an article, and should be placed within the Body section. I understand that Images have been placed in the Lead section. However, they are generally contained within an   template, which can be developed into another topic. They cannot be placed in the Standard appendix (template images such as Commons do not count), so by deduction the most appropriate location would be within the Body section. ChyranandChloe (talk) 03:56, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * C&C, I'd like to encourage you to spend time at processes like peer review and good articles to help you become familiar with a broad range of articles, editors, and editing styles. These proposals aren't universally correct (in terms of reflecting practice across articles), which is why care has to be taken when editing guideline pages.  First, infoboxes aren't required, many editors object to them, and images are very much included in lead as well as body sections.  The way images are placed on this page is fine; there is no need to pigeon-hole them into a specific (head or body) section.  Same applies for the discussion above about links, which you want to move to the body section, when discussion of links applies equally to the lead and even appendices (See also).  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 04:12, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Once again, I agree with Sandy. Scary. (That said, if we keep the Horizontal dividing line section - something to be discussed later - it may make sense to combine that section and the images section as h3 sections under an h2 section (perhaps called "Formating" or "Page elements") - something else to be discussed later.) Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:59, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

You're right, I think pushing it into the Body section would be over specification. However leaving it as a h2 brings too much attention, and causes h2 clutter. This leaves us with two options: we can redefine Body sections to Body and add a brief lead describing that it can apply the first paragraph or Lead section, or we could subordinate it to another h2 which applies throughout likely titled "General formatting" (me and Butwhatdoiknow are agreeing again). I take back my statement on infoboxes, I agree with you on that SandyGeorge. ChyranandChloe (talk) 21:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I also agree with Sandy here. I've seen dozens, if not hundreds, of images in the lead and not within an infobox.  Also relevant:  Under C&C's proposal, what would you do in a short article for which no appropriate infobox exists (or will ever exist), and in which the only h2-level sections are about details that are not related to the image you have?  Just skip the image because images only belong in the body, and your image illustrates the text in the lead?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:34, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * C&C, generally, unless we have a very good reason, I hesitate to redefine sections because other pages link to guidelines. I'm just not seeing a compelling reason to adjust the images section (I do see the issue about the links section having little to do with layout).  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:14, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I am having difficulty understanding what you are saying, WhatamIdoing; I already receded my earlier proposal utilizing infoboxes (last sentence of last comment). Since we are not going to explore the possibility of redefining the Body section so that leaves us with Butwhatdoiknow's proposal to created a new h2 titled General format (or whatever we decide to choose) and to subordinate the Images section. ¶Going along the lines of creating a General format section, we could rewrite (again) the Links section (see above) and subordinated it along with Images and Horizontal dividing line (utilizing HRs are so depreciated that it is possible to omit it). ¶As for the current Links section, we will still omit it on Thursday. That is, unless we finish the draft for the new Links section before then (assuming we will have it anyway). ChyranandChloe (talk) 03:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Here is the draft the General format section:

Standard appendices and descriptions → Standard appendicies
Standard appendices and descriptions should be renamed to Standard appendix. The current title is unnecessarily lengthy with "and descriptions" automatically implied. With the HTML comment "Please do not change. There are other articles that link to this title." it is likely that it has been desired to do so before. There is no compromise, since an anchor tag can be added to ensure that other articles linking to it will remain linked. ChyranandChloe (talk) 06:42, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * "With the HTML comment 'Please do not change. There are other articles that link to this title.' it is likely that it has been desired to do so before." I do not understand this sentence, please rephrase.


 * What the hidden comment means is that if you change this header you should also change the links which will be broken if you change the title. Whether or not there is an anchor is beside the point, as most links will be to the section header, not to an anchor. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 08:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Re. "most links will be to the section header, not to an anchor", apparently either you or I have a misunderstanding. Links are to an ID, not to a section header and not to an anchor. The ID can be provided by a section header, by an anchor, or by numerous other alternative mechanisms. As long as the provided ID matches the target ID of the link, the link will succeed&mdash;or such is my understanding of the technicalities rendered in mostly nontechnical language. Examples: I've linked to another section of this talk page by its header name here, and I've dropped an anchor at another header name with the ID of "Demo of linking to an anchor, see later talk page section" at another talk page section and linked to it here. If a section header name is changed, dropping an anchor with the old name will allow existing links to continue working. The question of whether or not this is a good practice is beyond the scope of my response here. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 11:42, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Given that the section describes multiple different types of appendices, the current title seems fine. Making the title singular is odd and it is not clear why you prefer it that way. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:20, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I was thinking the same thing, Chris, so I'm reproposing it as Standard appendices. I believe you do not understand the purpose of an anchor, Phillip Baird Shearer, as Boaracy Bill stated: the link will succeed. If you look into the code window of that section you will find a comment that looks like this after the heading, this means that this title has likely been changed before and reverted. The comment is somewhat ignorant of the usage of anchors. ChyranandChloe (talk) 03:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Page format
I have reverted most of the changes made by user:ChyranandChloe (04:08, 5 August 2008):

The first reason is minor. It is generally considered unnecessary to alter hidden text like double spaces after a full stop, or spaces before and after the == text in headers == as it throws up unnecessary edit diffs with no difference to the reader.

The second is not so minor and revolves around a difference in interpretation of the section references. Depending on the number of citations and the style, a reference section may or may not have a reflist template in it, or it may be a list of alphabetically sorted references (with an optional notes section depending on whether there are any ref tag pairs used for footnoting in the article, or there may be no citations or there may be Harvard referencing). --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 16:49, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Please do not revert edits made for coding reliability reasons, which are automated by WikiEd and have no effect on the the page. The second edit was made to improve the visibility of the coding and results example in which attribute, it is used for section jumping. All sections (headings), all anchors, and all inline citations use identifiers to help specify a location within the document; it lets them jump to that part of the document when you click on an entry in the ToC, an inline-reference link, and so on. When you have two identifiers with the same name, you have an identifier conflict. By default the second of two identifiers is omitted. I hope this clarifies. ChyranandChloe (talk) 19:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I "solved" this problem on August 18 by putting the following text in the "Notes" section: If you arrived here from a link on another page then click here to go to the section discussing notes and references. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 19:42, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * That's a really poor way to solve the issue. Since the original Notes section (the one regarding the Standard appendices) was created, all links were redirected to that section rather than the Notes at the bottom. I don't believe that people would be interested in linking to the explanatory notes section of this article rather than the section regarding how Notes should be arranged. Therefore, I've renamed the Notes section at the bottom to Footnotes to avoid an identifier conflict, returned the anchor to the new section, and removed the piece of text at the bottom. ChyranandChloe (talk) 21:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Portals in infobox templates
Portals belong in See also. But some editors persistently add them to the end of infoboxes, which causes them to appear in the lead (and causes an WP:ACCESSIBILITY breach as well). Samples at Template:Infobox Archbishop of Canterbury and Template:Infobox Archbishop of York. Does the text need to be reinforced to specifically address this? Sandy Georgia (Talk) 17:33, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't really see a problem with having the portal link there; the area it occupies is often unused white space and for articles containing those template it's certainly a relevant link. I'm not sure what accessibility issue exists but presumably that issue can be separated from the one of whether the link should exist at all. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:51, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I did a word search and didn't find "portal" in the Accessibility article. Is the restriction against putting them in the lead implied by some other language in that article? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 18:45, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply to both. Parham, do you use a screen reader?  Butwhat, it's the part that templates go after the text in the lead, before the first section heading.  Look at some really bad examples of very long templates added under the infobox. Or look at some articles where three or four or five portals might be added to the infobox; consider the breach of this guideline if taken beyond this one simple example.  This is automatically breaching two guidelines at once in every article that uses that infobox.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 19:18, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I did a word search and didn't find "template" in the Accessibility article. Is the part about templates going after the lead text implied by some other language in that article? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 19:47, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The accessibility guideline shows the infobox appearing ahead of the lead and doesn't mention anything about including portal links within the infobox. What are you getting at? Whether putting infoboxes ahead of the lead is actually a good thing from an accessibility standpoint is debatable (I think probably it is not) but that is a matter for another time. I don't much care for the language in this guideline and if push came to shove would support removing it; see also is one appropriate place for portal links but this is another good place since it is often just empty space. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:00, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Man. OK, should I post the entire text over here ? Do you see the order of the items on the Accessibility page? Do you see where navigational templates fall in that order? Do you see that first are dab links and maintenance tags, then under the infobox, next comes images, then comes text, then navigation boxes? Navigation templates (which portals are, they aren't images or infoboxes) go under the text. They don't go between an infobox and images, as is forced when adding them to an infobox. Portals go in See also, and the white space Parham is talking about is 1) not universal on every article (it depends on the size of the box, the template, the TOC, the lead, many factors), and 2) not the same as what is seen on screen readers. That's part of why portals go in see also. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 20:05, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Please be kind to ignoramuses. So, navigation "boxes" is the same as navagation "templates"? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 20:59, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * oh, man, isn't wiki fun ??? Yes, the terminology is all messed up.  Infoboxes are standard formats that allow variable input, and are different on each article.  Navigational (boxes, templates, aids, whatever we call them) are collections of internal Wikilinks and information that don't vary depending on where they are used, as infoboxes do.  I don't know if that's clear, since I never considered before how confusing the variable terminology is.  Think of them in terms of function rather than form.  Infoboxes summarize a bunch of information (a summary of the lead) in a format that is standardized across articles, but individualized within an article according to the article data provided for the infobox.  Navigational aids are always the same, no matter which article they're used in.  Is that what you're asking?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:07, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I've done some editing to Accessibility so that the next ignoramus will have a bit more guidance. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 02:12, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

The lead section is usually composed of several elements, including disambiguation links, infoboxes, images, introductory text, and navigation boxes. All but the text element are optional. When the optional elements are used they should be in the following order:

  &lt;!-- CORRECT STRUCTURE OF LEAD SECTION --&gt; Foo bar ...  [table of contents] == First section == 


 * Disambiguation links should be the first elements of the page, before any image or infobox. A text only browser or screen reader presents the page sequentially, and otherwise the dablink will be read between the image and the lead section. For example:

  &lt;!-- WRONG CODE --&gt; Foo bar ... 


 * The above code is wrong because, although in a graphic browser it will be read OK, a screen reader will start reading the article (the image caption), later it will be disrupted by the disambiguation link, and later it will continue reading the article. Instead, it should be:

  &lt;!-- CORRECT CODE --&gt; Foo bar ... 


 * This code will be both readable in a graphic browser and by a screen reader.


 * The maintenance tags should be below the disambiguation links. These tags inform the reader about the general quality of the article, and should be presented to the user before the article itself.
 * Infoboxes are a summary of the article, and therefore should be put before any text. A difference between an infobox and a navigational box is the presence of parameters: a navigational box is exactly the same in all articles of the same topic, while an infobox has different contents in each article.
 * Navigational boxes are a collection of links to related articles of the same topic. For the same reason as avoiding the floating TOC, they should be just after the lead section so a Wikipedian using a screen reader can jump to the table of contents without reading the whole navigational text.
 * Introductory text.


 * I've read the page, the problem is that this guideline makes no sense. Infoboxes are not "a summary of the article"...the lead section is the summary of the article. Where is the discussion that mandated this order as being best for accessibility? Why would users of screen readers want to hear that Earth has longitude of ascending node of 348.73936° before discovering the minor detail that it is "the only place in the universe where life is known to exist"?
 * In any case, that aspect of your problem can be resolved, if desired, by moving the portal link out of the template and including it separately after the lead. As far as the guidance on this page, where was the consensus established to include the phrase that portals are most appropriately included under "see also"? The issue is basically never discussed in the archives of this talk page and I don't agree that it is good advice. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:14, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't have any problem understanding the accessibility page; in fact, I think it's one of the more clear guideline pages. Do you use a screen reader? I'm not in a position to question what those who do use them say, are you?  Portals are collections of internal links, like see also, and like other navigational templates.  Moving the portal out of the infobox is fine; adding it after the text in the lead would conform with ACCESSIBILITY, but not with LAYOUT.  Have you seen articles with five or six portals and templates clunked up in the lead?  Is that desirable?  Again, don't look at this one example, which has only one portal; consider articles with multiple portals and where they should be placed.  See also is the most logical place, and they've been there, in this guideline, for as long as I've been aware.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:24, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Did the person who added the suggested order to the guideline (without any evident discussion then or since) use a screen reader? There's nothing to suggest this is so, and there's ample reason to question the page when it makes obviously false statements; practically no infoboxes constitute a meaningful summary of the article. In general, I think that advice in a guideline is much more compelling if there is an actual discussion where consensus was determined to support it. Neither of the points at issue here have ever actually being discussed on the relevant talk pages, so far as I can tell.
 * I am looking at this one example becuase that's the one you are changing. I don't find the slippery slope argument compelling in this case as articles with five or six portals and templates can be addressed separately by removing all but the most relevant links. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:08, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Since the people who have contacted FAC about the ACCESSIBILITY page have consulted the editors on Wiki who do use screenreaders, yes, I think so. Rick Block would know.  I suspect it may be the case that not all of that discussion happens on Wiki, as it depends on certain technology.  I don't see any false statements; you may disagree that infoxes summarize leads, but that's a strawman relative to this issue and it's a bit of hyperbole to call that untrue.  Infoboxes are definitely intended to summarize info in the lead, which is why some of us find them so useless.  At any rate, whether they've correctly defined an infobox is tangential to any accessibility issues.   If you want to challenge accessibility, I suggest consulting Rick Block, who does have contact with editors who use screen readers.  So you're OK with a guideline that allows or encourages stacks of boxes and templates before any text, most often resulting in the very white space you initially objected to?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:22, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry to jump into this fray, particularly when I am not well versed in the issues. But I wonder about the following phrase in the Accessibility article (set forth above): "[navigational boxes] should be just after the lead section so a Wikipedian using a screen reader can jump to the table of contents without reading the whole navigational text." My understanding is that a portal is a navigational box (or, if you will, template). So wouldn't the rule apply to portals? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 02:12, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep, we covered that :-) If you re-read, now that you know the lingo, you'll see it.  The problem is that putting a portal in the infobox forces it above the text.  Putting a portal below the text in the lead would not violate ACCESSIBILITY (some templates are put after the lead, just not portals), but it does breach LAYOUT, which has portals at the bottom of the article.  The difference is that portals are designed to draw you in, taking you away from the article, which is why we want them at the bottom, after you've read the article.  Some other vertical navigational templates are placed at the top, after the lead (but they rarely work well).  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 04:04, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * So are you saying that the use of all navigation boxes in the lead section should be deprecated? If not, is there a phrase differentiates between those that may and those that should not appear in the lead? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 12:02, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not aware if other editors share my personal dislike of vertical navigational templates chunking up the top of articles. But the difference between portals and navigational templates is that portals typically go far beyond the individual article, are for more general browsing, while navigational templates theoretically group articles more directly linked to the article in question.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 19:06, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that WP:ACCESS needs to be updated to allow for the possibility that some navboxes have more to do with See also than anything else. We can't change guidelines at ACCESS by complaining here, though, so I've posted my concerns at WT:ACCESS. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:55, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The edit history over there jogged my memory: I believe (don't quote me) that Graham87 is the editor who uses a screen reader.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 19:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Guideline usage
The first note in the header is the following: "This page documents an English Wikipedia style guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should follow, though it should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. When editing this page, please ensure that your revision reflects consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page." Please discuss on the talk page. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:16, 26 August 2008 (UTC).


 * I'm not in doubt that my edits clarify the intention. Thanks for asking, though! Wednesday Next (talk) 15:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This is my suggested revision: "As explained in more detail at WP:MOS, it is inappropriate to change an article from one defined style to another unless there is a reason that goes beyond mere choice of style. However, edits which address deviations from written style guidelines are acceptable, given there are common sense examples and exceptions allowed." FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC).


 * This give carte blanche to idiosyncratic preferences billed as "improvements". Anyone should be able to conform an article to the style it appears to be based on without being attacked and edit warred against for undoing some idiosyncratic editor's preference. The intent is to choose between styles, like choosing between British and American English (explicit choices). If the article does not conform to some described variant listed in WP:LAYOUT for example, no editor should be made to feel wrong for correcting the variance, and certainly no other editor should edit war to reinstate some unlisted variant. They should either get consensus to get their variation included in the list, or give it up. Wednesday Next (talk) 15:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This may surpsise you, but I agree with your contention about use of styles. Consensus for decision such as an editing style is important but that is often achieved on the article talk pages. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC).
 * Then you don't seem to agree with me. I believe that choosing between existing styles can and should be done on article talk pages. I don't believe guidelines should be overridden on a per article basis by consensus. If a variant is not listed in any of the guidelines, anyone should be able to improve the article by making it consistent with one of the described styles. Wednesday Next (talk) 16:08, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * How can all possible variants and sub-styles ever be listed in one place? Guidelines expressly state that common sense and exceptions are permitted, given that a consensus can be arrived at. FWiW, your suggestion that all variances be referred to the layout or other guideline pages is not an expedient way of dealing with the issues. Bzuk (talk) 16:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC).
 * It's quite practical. Anyone who opposes the correction of layout can point to the guideline which shows that the option used is in fact, one of the style option described. Then there would be no question that it is an accepted style. Easy. Wednesday Next (talk) 16:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Guidelines are such that they are recommended but not carved in stone nor cast in concrete, they are guidelines that do not preclude common sense and exceptions. Editors who can make a case for an editing style and receive consensus from other interested/involved editors are abiding by the guidelines. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:37, 26 August 2008 (UTC).
 * I disagree. Treating guidelines this way is counter-productive. The guidelines allow for some defined variances. Otherwise, consistency should take precedence. Arguments for changes and extension of guidelines should be made not on article pages, but on the guideline talk pages. Changes which are rejected should not be slipped in the back door elsewhere. For example, the substitution of "Bibliography" for "References" has been rejected here, for reasons of consistency with historical usage on Wikipedia, preference that it be used for an author's works on Wikipedia (avoiding having two sections with the same title), and avoiding the creation of extra work for no good reason. Wednesday Next (talk) 16:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Guidelines allow for variances, the fact that many users provide a reference list that is titled a "bibliogrpahy" is already established. Bzuk (talk) 17:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC).
 * Not defined or established by guideline. Wednesday Next (talk) 17:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Whether to provide one example of a reason to change a Notes, Footnotes, and/or References style.
There is an edit war over this addition to the Notes, Footnotes, and/or References section: However, edits which correct deviations from written style guidelines should not be reverted. I vote for leaving this text out of the Layout article. The intent of the current text is to provide a VERY short explanation and let the editor go to the Manual of Style page for details. This addition would be a detail and would begin the process of adding non-layout information to the Layout article. I suggest that Wednesday add this language to the Manual of Style article Consistency section instead of putting it in Layout. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Centralize comments in sub-article, see above note, but much too wordy at present. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC).
 * Agree with ammendedment suggested by Butwhatdoiknow. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC).

Further reading question
I know self published sources falls under WP:V with regard to references, but what about the Further reading section. If someone self-publishes a book on the subject, is it acceptable to put it here. It would not seem to fall under source requirements as it's not being used as a source, but I wanted to hear if anyone has run into this question. Thanks Morphh   (talk) 14:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's acceptable. Think of "Further reading" as "External links on paper".  Of course, it would still have to pass muster with the other editors and actually be worth reading.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)