[edit] List of Schools in Karachi The layout does not relate to the way schools are organized in karachi. There are too many categories. To those familiar with the topic, just a single long list will do nicely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Civilizationsschool (talk • contribs) 15:06, 19 October 2009 (UTC) - I've simplified the organization and removed vandalism about some "Royal City Public School". Public/Private and Boy/Girls/Co-educational categories are now the sentences introducing a list. Good job adding the "Civilizations Public Schools"; but please be careful, be humble, and do not go overboard. A table may be helpful to organize: name, address, website, and description—I can convert the list into a table if you want, just ask. Keep up the good work. ChyranandChloe (talk) 03:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Should infoboxes link to portals? I just noticed the newly-created Template:Infobox_outlines. This infobox contains links to categories, portals, and article. (It previously also included a link to a Wikipedia essay, but I've removed that.) In my view, this violates WP:LAYOUT, which specifically indicates that portals should be place in the See Also section. I'm considering nominating this for deletion, but first wanted to see the opinions of those who more closely follow this guideline. Karanacs (talk) 14:51, 20 October 2009 (UTC) - I Agree; all of that (categories, portals, etc) belongs at the bottom of the article, per LAYOUT. Infoboxes, at the top of the article, are not the place for internal Wiki content. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:33, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- "{{Portal}} links are usually placed in this section [See also]."[1]
Sorry for not replying sooner, busy. The statement in the guideline is a qualified as "usually", and is not a prescription that "specifically indicates that portals should be placed in the See Also". There's a difference in both the language and the spirit. It's not a violation. Categories as linkable text (different from footers) are not uncommon in infoboxes concerning outlines, although they are often less conspicuous than the template being discussed (e.g. the "Part of a series on" in {{Islam}}, {{Smoking}}, {{Atmospheric sciences}}). Please explain "your view". ChyranandChloe (talk) 05:16, 22 October 2009 (UTC) - Categories shouldn't be there either. The article is for our readers; information internal to Wiki or about Wiki workings (portals and categories) belongs at the bottom of the article, as self-references, unrelated to the article, or less helpful to our readers. Many infoboxes already pollute article leads with unnecessary, repeat info; adding internal Wiki info to them will further that problem to an extreme. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- Karanacs stated that the template, as quoted, "violates WP:LAYOUT".[2] My replay was to such. What you believe beyond the guideline belongs to you, and you can stop omitting "I" when you say it. ChyranandChloe (talk) 21:59, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- As far as I can tell, this so-called infobox is actually a WP:NAVBOX, and therefore the infobox rules are irrelevant.
- (It is now time for an urgent discussion in the kitchen about the chocolate supply...) WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Vanity press publications in further reading We don't seem to have a more detailed guide on "Further reading" sections except for the brief section that is present here in this article. This says that "Further reading" sections are functional equivalents of "External links" sections, for which we have well-defined eligibility requirements (WP:ELNO). Given the current rise in vanity presses such as Lulu.com (which I cannot link to, thanks to the spam filter, but here are publications from this press in google books) and BookSurge (google books), should we think about adding a note somewhere that self-published books/vanity press publications are not generally welcome additions to "Further reading" sections? (This is what prompted my concern.) --JN466 13:03, 23 October 2009 (UTC) - There was a discussion in July about tightening the "Further reading" inclusion criteria,[3] which lead to a slight change in WP:FURTHER. IMO, it may be helpful to read through the old discussion, so we're not starting all over again. In the post you've linked "My concern is that self-published materials are expressly disallowed as sources and external links in BLPs, except for materials by the subject themselves." just for clarification, some editors place materials by the subject themselves in a "List of works", "Publications", or sometimes "Bibliography".[4] Now to answer you question about vanity-press, what you've said makes sense, and I think we can take precedent from WP:COI and WP:ELNO #4. Let's wait for some feedback though, after that we can begin drafting a change to the guideline. Thanks. ChyranandChloe (talk) 05:50, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. Also note Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons#Self_published_books_for_further_reading. --JN466 11:53, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
- Wondering. The "External links" described in WP:LAYOUT doesn't go into what should or should not be linked, but instead defers to WP:EL. In May WP:LAYOUT did two studies,[5][6] using the old data set, External links is 25 times more prevalent than Further reading in all articles discounting stubs. There's a reason why WP:FURTHER seems to follow WP:EL in WP:SPAM and WP:LAYOUT, which leads me to believe that a possible proposal in WP:SPAM may be more appropriate. ChyranandChloe (talk) 00:29, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
- Yes. I agree that a section in WP:SPAM is more appropriate than adding material here. (If and when that has been done, a "See also" reference to that section can be added here.) --JN466 01:36, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
[edit] See also rule. Suggestions and question I get the impression that the rule of "See also" could be improved. Extract 1: "A reasonable number of relevant links that would be in the body of a hypothetical perfect article are suitable to add to the "See also" appendix of a less developed one." - To totally clear to me what it means. (but english is not my native tong)
Extract 2: "Links already integrated into the body of the text are generally not repeated in a "See also" section," - I personally find this rule too restrictive. Indeed I personally find the "See also" section helpful when it summaerizes the related concepts that may already have been mentionned in the article. It also facilitate navigation, and the quick identification of the concept you are interested in (without having to read the all article).
Extract 3: "and navigation boxes at bottom of articles may substitute for many links (see bottom of Pathology for example)." - Small question: Why not to add in the 'See also' section links to the WikiDictionnary (and other Wikipedia related project here)? I have some difficulty indeed to consider them as external links, since they are part of the Wikipedia "Sphere".
These are just suggestions (my 20 cents?). Thanks --Nabeth (talk) 21:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC) - I can understand your sense of frustration (and I do apologize for putting on a perceived "patronizing tone" earlier, which was a result of irritation on my part) from our previous encounter with the nature of a See also, but as the section's name ("See also") implies (namely, that "seeing such and such also" entails that one hasn't seen it before), it serves the purpose to fill in gaps by leading one to other related articles, or as I put it in my reply to you here, "the function of a see also is to provide windows for one to explore related areas not directly mentioned in the article." As for the issue related to Extract 3, navigation boxes are comprehensive tables pertaining to the general or specific topics of which that article is a part or member; moreover, if you look here, scrolling all the way down, then you will find that there is already a navigation box in place, eliminating a number of items potentially fit for mention in the See also. At any rate, while an addition like "Atkinson-Shiffrin memory model" would certainly not be a nominee for further treatment in the article as a whole, others would in theory be suited to such an elaboration (provided that space permits).
Given this treatment of the matter, I'm not so sure a revision to the policy on See also is needed. Others can weigh in, however.—αrgumziω ϝ 22:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC) -
- It means: "If this article does not mention a specific related subject, but it should mention the related subject, then please be nice to our readers and at least link the related article so they can find it." Alternatively, you can expand the article to properly cover the subject.
- Editors should use their best judgment, but a well-written, comprehensive article is more valuable than a list of links to other articles.
- WP:SISTER links are not part of WikiPedia. They are part of WikiMedia. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
-
- Quick comment. This is why I used the term Wikipedia "Sphere" (acknowledging this distinction). 'Sisters' and brother are of the same family as Wikipedia, and therefore as I indicated it anoys me (but does not make me mad :-)) to put this in external links (all this is semantic). --Nabeth (talk) 23:10, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
- Placing non-Wikipedia links in the "part-of-Wikipedia links" section would mislead readers about their actual relationship. WikiBooks (for example) is not part of Wikipedia; it has entirely different rules, entirely different purpose, and somewhat different methods. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:07, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] BIG further reading sections I am seeing allot of BIG Further reading sections such as this (over half the article). They are sometimes put in under "Reference" but seem to amount ot the same thing. The guidance reasonable number seems pretty common sense but should it be stated more clearly and maybe include "Reference" sections? Is there a cleanup tag for Further reading or Reference sections that have to be reduced? Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 16:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC) - Technically that isn't a Further reading section if it is under References (subgrouped or not). That said, it would appear that specific case would call for spliting into References and Further reading. Generally, references should not be removed unless you can show without a doubt that the reference has not been used in the article. There is no reason we can't have 100s of references in articles (large articles often do) and this one one of many styles of references currently in use. If you feel a cleanup template is necessary, I would suggest {{More footnotes}} as this article is most certainly going to be using short citations as it is expanded and it is clear that this article will become much larger over time. --Tothwolf (talk) 17:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
- There were very few references in that section, it was a general index or directory of publications citing no specific issues, it could have just as well said "References - see Library of Congress Card catalog re: Constellation". It looked more like a mistake you see in allot of articles where editors confuse "References" for a "Reference" section. I took a common sense WP:BRD at it since there were obvious non-encyclopedic reference sections such as the directory of magazines, list of mechanical Planispheres, and "how-to" references (Wikipedia would never contain how-to material).Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:44, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
- {{Further reading cleanup}}. Also, you can weed the farm, or start a discussion on focusing the list to what's actually needed for this particular article. For example, some of the books might be more appropriately placed in more specific articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:09, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
-
- You can also split it off to a bibliography article; see Harry S. Truman and Bibliography of Harry S. Truman. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 22:17, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
The WP:FOOTERS guideline currently states: Order of optional appendices:[1] - Works or Publications or Bibliography
- See also
- Notes and/or References
- Further reading
- External links (It is especially important that this section appears last[2])
Order of optional footers: - Succession boxes and navigational templates (footer navboxes)
- Categories
- Stub templates (the first stub template should be preceded by two blank lines)
- Interlanguage links
The following is also noted in Perennial Proposals:
# Proposal: The standard appendices at the end of an article (e.g., See also, Notes, References, Further reading, and External links) should be changed to the system preferred by the editor/a particular professional field/the editor's school. These proposals may involve changing the names of the sections (e.g., changing References to Sources or Bibliography), changing the order of the sections (e.g., putting External links first, or References last), or changing the formatting (e.g., long lists of references should be hidden in a scrolling box). - Reasons for previous rejection: Policies and guidelines document "actual good practices". Most proposals fail to demonstrate that their proposed practice is an emerging, sustainable alternative to the current de facto method. These guidelines only seek to document the status quo and not to change it. The See also precedes the References, Further reading, and External links; the reason for the existing order follows a logical progression from on-wiki to off-wiki information.
Do all the appendices necessarily precede all the optional footers? It seems to me that the "logical progression from on-wiki to off-wiki information" is interrupted somewhat if succession boxes with wikilinks go after the External links. There is also another issue with this practice: at least one well-meaning editor has been moving succession boxes to the end of the article after the "external links" section, and in some cases this is a very confusing move. For example, in articles on pop songs, chart succession boxes have previously been included in the "charts" section, which makes sense. In cases where more than version of the song has been a hit, succession boxes have been included in the "charts" section belonging to the relevant cover version(s) where applicable. However, when this information is moved to the end of the article, it is no longer clear which succession table refers to which version. Example: Take on Me, which was assessed as a good article with the succession boxes in the relevant sections, as is the norm with this type of article. I imagine this situation was unanticipated when the Footers guideline was written. [edit] Proposal I propose that, in order to minimise the potential for confusion, the following wording should be added to WP:FOOTERS: If a succession box refers to a specific section of an article, it should be inserted at the end of that section. Does that sound OK? Contains Mild Peril (talk) 20:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC) - Template issue not Layout issue. Succession boxes were designed and defined to be "[p]laced at the bottom of their respective articles".[7] (1) WP:SBS manages and determines the definition, not WP:LAYOUT. (2) Changing its position changes its definition, however, what you've said makes sense, and that's more important. When something like this happens, usually editors create a new template to fit the "unanticipated" new context. I can help. If you believe that the difference between a possible new template and the current would be too small, talk to WP:SBS, we'll get it fixed. And I can also help. ChyranandChloe (talk) 03:35, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll give it a mention there. I don't think there's anything in the template itself which makes it inherently more suitable for the end of the article rather than the end of the section: it's been normal practice to use these boxes at the end of sections as I described for some time and I'm not aware of any problems with this. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 22:13, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
|
