This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Layout page.
	Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith Avoid personal attacks Be welcoming Shortcuts: WT:GTL WT:LAYOUT
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

Manual of StyleWikipedia:WikiProject Manual of StyleTemplate:WikiProject Manual of StyleManual of Style articles		WikiProject Manual of Style
	v • d • e 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.

Changing the order, names, or format of appendices: Please read WP:PEREN#Changes_to_standard_appendices before proposing a change to the standard appendices.

Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Contents 1 Confusing 2 Headings and sections: proposed rewording 3 proposed stylistic changes 4 Header prose rewrite 5 Requesting assistance 6 In-paragraph see also?

[edit] Confusing

Confusing ""References" is the most popular, followed by "Notes", and then "Footnotes"." because reading it quickly it might be taken for the ordering of the sections not the popularity of the names.

BTW who says that it is true and what about sections called "Notes and References" etc. --PBS (talk) 11:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Guidelines document "actual" practices (WP:PG), references is by far the most common found in 48% (±2.19% CI95%) of all articles, the closes runner up is "Notes" found in 4.45% (±1.04% CI95%) of all articles. You can reword it if you want to better reflect the original intent. I don't understand the first clause of your second statement, "who says that it is true"? "Notes and references" are simply putting together two the names enumerated, it's possible to have "Notes and Citations" and likewise, but combinations would make the list cumbersome. I decided against it, however since "Notes and references" seems to be used more often than the other possible combinations, enumerated it if you want. ChyranandChloe (talk) 17:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

It is not as simple as you suggest. Guidelines don't just document "actual" practices but influence practice as well (you seem to be ignoring "Proposing a change in practice and seeking consensus for implementation of that change.") A good example of this is the change of whether or not to link dates. For many years most articles had all their dates linked so that auto-formatting would work, because of the wording of the MOS. After a long debate and a vocal pressure group, that was changed (and the bots got to work). If guidelines only ever "document "actual" practices" changes such as that would never be made. In reality there is a symbiotic relationship between guidelines such as this and editing practice in articles.

For example for a long time I placed article sections in the order "References, Further reading, Footnotes", I only changed to "Notes, References, Footnotes" because that was the suggestion on this page (because some people preferred the Notes to be next to References. I preferred Footnotes last so that any footnotes in "Further reading" could be included in the Footnotes section. --PBS (talk) 18:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

"Proposing a change in practice and seeking consensus[...]" defines how its done, not necessarily what. I understand the proposal process PBS. What guidelines document are the: "actual" and "good" pratices—I failed to enumerate the latter in my last post. Date delinking is successful in part because "actual" can be challenged because of the use of bots, and "good" because of neutrality among multiple systems. This is my central point to what goes into this guideline: what a guideline will cover is to documentation, how changes are implemented is to consensus.

In order for "References" to reach the levels of acceptance it currently exerts now, it certainly has to be: a stable, comprehensive, actual, good practice. The competitors of "References" as the primary heading for the verification sections certainly deviates from the most accepted practice, therefore under the undue weight clause of WP:NPOV, "References" receives the greatest prominence. Proposals to new guidelines or changes to existing ones usually occurs when the guideline fails to be articulate, its points clear, simple, rationale solid, and actual (prevalence) verified. With that in mind, below are my thoughts on how to articulate what I believe our issue is, and where this discussion should be headed:

1. Distinguishing between (1) explanatory notes (such as those found in Jane Austen, Global warming, Reston ebolavirus, and Mary Shelley) and (2) inline or general items used for verification, the "References". There is a clear and notable difference between the two. Explanatory notes do not verify the article, instead they're more akin to exposition: prudent, but too awkward to be directly in the prose. Therefore I've made the bold change to separate the two.
2. Explanatory notes often come before the "References", however the proportion of articles that use this system are far too few for me to run such definitive tests as declare with certainty: (1) "References" is twelve times more prevalent than the closest competitor, (2) the order of the standard appendices as prescribed by WP:LAYOUT is followed 71% (±7.77% CI95%) of the time when the guideline is applicable[1]. Because of (1) the ambiguity of where explanatory notes may belong and (2) because I feel that it may be challenged if I do provide a location—I've therefore left the location field in "Notes" section blank. For now. Rationale on what the "good" practice is and proposals on alternative methods is what this guideline is about. I've made the bold change, diving the two and while keeping as much of the original wording as a can. If you disagree, we'll move back to the stable version[2], and move the changes to a sandbox for further evaluation. If you want to see change, here you go. Articulate it.
3. There is an overlap in our guideline. "Notes" and "Footnotes" are the most natural names for explanatory notes—however—they're used for verification as well. For these reasons they may also be merged, with ambiguous intent to be used for (1) verification or (2) for both verification and exposition. This yields the form we talk about earlier: "Notes and references". The first step is tracking down all notable methods, the second is to begin differentiating. This process of: determine what has been done, and determine what is best—is how "References" is recommended for verification out of array of possibilities, and how the order of the standard appendices has become reasonably stabilized. Remember if we don't say anything, then anything goes. This is what's on my mind. What's on yours? ChyranandChloe (talk) 04:23, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

IMO, the problem with (2) is a good reason for not splitting these sections. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I reverted the edit by ChyranandChloe [3], because notes frequently contain {{reflist}} and References contain bullet pointed full citations as used in WP:CITE#Footnote system --PBS (talk) 09:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

WhatamIdoingChyranandChloe, I think your interpretation of how guidelines are formulated is too limited (as the dates issue shows). However let us put that to one side for the moment as I would like to investigate another aspect of this. I presume you are running you tests over a random sample of pages (the good the bad and the ugly)--or are you actually looking at all the pages on Wikipeida? The relationship between what the guidelines say will be far higher in pages that are Wikipedia:Good articles and Wikipedia:Featured articles. I suspect that if you were to look at what this page recommends as layout at any particular time and when a page becomes a good article the correlation would be high. Indeed as there is a list of good articles, it would be interesting to see what your stats return on these types of pages. --PBS (talk) 09:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I think you intended to direct that comment to C&C. My contribution to this discussion to date has amounted to a single sentence. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Apologies WhatamIdoing, it was to do with the indentation levels that confused me. --PBS (talk)

I stated that "Notes" can be used as references as well as exposition, which implies that it can hold {{reflist}}. Two of my four examples are feature articles (Global warming and Mary Shelly), and the other two aren't far behind. What I am proposing is to distinguish when the section title "Notes" is used for (1) exposition, and when it will be used for (2) verification. The difference is great enough that they should be discussed as two different topics. Explain to me how the proposal contadicts this central point. Here's the oldid: [4].

Item two, section order; all four the examples I've cited place the explanatory notes above the References, which is to a lesser extent supported by the current version as Notes comes first in "Notes or References" even though "References" is more common. PBS might have some examples where they're placed elsewhere, this is where I think we'll disagree on, but I'm not certain.

The study not too long ago is actually confounded through what is called Simpson's paradox, where the measure is too general to adquately describe the situation. Furthermore what you're talking about is actually called "stratification"; straifying samples from FA, GA, unranked, and stubs and determining whether or not it's compliant with WP:LAYOUT is descrete random variable, not a continuous random variable. You won't be running a regression and determing the correlation, "r" value. Also WP:FA and WP:GA withhold approval if the article being propose doesn't follow WP:LAYOUT; the formats actually used that are not covered was what the study was trying to determine. ChyranandChloe (talk) 06:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I think we need to agree terminology or we could be talking at cross purposes. Can we use the terms notes, citations, for the things generated by the footnote system and refer to a bullet list of sources as "references"? --PBS (talk) 22:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The usual Wikispeak is

• short citations for "Smith, p. 256"
• full citations for "Smith, John. 2008. The Story of Everyman. One Publisher, Earth."
• explanatory notes for other text.

This system has the advantages of not leading to statements like "I think the references should be labeled notes." Will these terms work for you? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:20, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Does not really help because full citations can also appear in a {{reflist}} it depends on the style of footnotes. Better to use the terms as I have described them. --PBS (talk) 18:57, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. PBS, you haven't addressed to the level I am looking at on how differentiating between explanatory notes and full and short citations is not justified. I'm trying to keep the central point simple. Of course there are more dimensions to the dispute; my intentions aren't to boil down Date delinking to two distinct aspects, but to write it in a context that can be used to better describe our situation. You sound like you have something in mind. Please explain. I am not certain what questions you are asking or what you want this discussion to be about. If you do not articulate yourself, I cannot address your central point, and discussion in the first place becomes inane. ChyranandChloe (talk) 04:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

The edit I reverted contain this wording: "Contents: Although less common, this section presents explanatory notes that provide prudent exposition that would be awkward in the prose." for the Notes section, because the notes section more often also includes citations and/or notes and citations (mix together in the order they appear in the article text). Sometimes editors use two reflist with one >{{reflist|group=nb}} (as is done in the article Battle of Britain, but this is less common than mixing footnotes an citations in one {{reflist}} --PBS (talk)

Yeah, I've used the group attribute in {{reflist}} and in the less popular <references group="notes" /> before. Mary Shelley, which is one of the examples cited above, uses this method; although it doesn't nest the sections as in Battle of Britain. Global warming originally combined the two in "Notes and references"[5], it switched to method said above[6], to hard coded XHTML[7], to {{Cnote}}[8], and finally to the newer {{Cnote2}}. I understand that Notes is used more often in citations than in the form of explanatory notes. Went over this before, if it concerns verification, the exact methodology is deferred to WP:CITE; WP:LAYOUT only covers the title and general location of the section. "Notes" and "Footnotes" are enumerated as a possible titles in the '"References" section' in the old id and in the current version. I'm not catching on how you want to word this; you should give it a try. ChyranandChloe (talk) 20:13, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

C&C, based on the change to the indentation, I think you've incorrectly assumed that the bulleted terminology list is from PBS, when it is in fact from me. It appears, though, that he cares more about the mechanics of it than the content. He seems to be trying to distinguish a <ref>-based citation from the same citation by any other means (e.g., "typing a bulleted list"). I've reverted the indent so that the first and last lines of my five-line comment are the same. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:26, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Isn't that deferred to WP:CITE? I mean I'm going over the differentiating between explanatory notes and verification. Short and long citations is WP:CITE's problem. ChyranandChloe (talk) 05:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] I though my explanation was in why I reverted C&C's edit, the notes section can and often does have citations in it, it is not reserved for only "explanatory notes that provide prudent exposition that would be awkward in the prose." --PBS (talk) 10:38, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I didn't intend to sound like it would be reserved for only explanatory notes. I wanted to make it clearer, that it can be used for both citations and explanatory notes. If the following clause was added, "Note that this section title is also used to hold inline References", would it satisfy what you're looking for? ChyranandChloe (talk) 06:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Headings and sections: proposed rewording

Many editors will have noted the large appearing weight (at least in the main skin) of ===h3===relative to ===h2===. For that reason I'm proposing a minor rewording to the Headings and sections section to make it more flexible, and more in line with MOS:HEAD). Here is the text with changes in red:

Headings are hierarchical: you should start with a second-level heading (two equals signs on each side: ==Heading==). In general, a subsection of a section should have a third-level subheading (===Subheading===), and a subsection of one of these subsections should have a fourth-level subheading (====Subsubheading====). In special cases, non-consecutive levels (for example ===h2=== followed by ===h4===) can be used to improve the clarity of the layout. Between sections, there should be only a single blank line; multiple blank lines in the edit window create too much white space in the article.

Any comments? --Kleinzach 02:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

We threw out covering header level a while ago, I believe, to keep it simple; but I think it's a good idea to inform the reader how the header system works. I added an example of when sections jump from h2 to h4 with WP:RPP. For articles, cases where this is needed seems non-existent—it's more often an editorial mistake. This is what I have:

Headings follow a six level hierarchy, starting at 1 and ending at 6. The level of the header is defined by the number of equal signs on either side of the title. Header 1 (=Header 1=) is automatically generated as the title of the document, and is rarely used within the body. Sections start at the second level (==Header 2==), with subsequent subsections at the third level (===Header 3===), and sub-subsection at the fourth level (====Header 4====)—until six. Sections should be consecutive, a second level section should not immediately be followed by a fourth level section—unless special needs (such as WP:RPP) justify its usage. Between sections, there should be a single blank line; multiple blank lines in the edit window create too much white space in the article.

Headers follow the standards set by the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), Wikipedia uses XHTML 1.0 Transitional after the Wikicode is parsed. Here is the verification: the intro doc [9] and the technical doc [10] to the specification. The technical doc is a little old (HTML 4), but it's still useful. WhatamIdoing, you're usually better at prose than I am; what do you think? ChyranandChloe (talk) 06:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

There may be a confusion here between 'sections' (organizational) and 'headings' (typographical).

There are many cases where jumping from h2 to h4 is preferred by editors for the aesthetic/typographical reason that h3 is too large, especially in complex lists. Of course it might be better to use bold rather than a heading, but editors don't know that. The background to this is is obviously the poor typographical quality of the main skin. Other skins may look better, but it seems better to stick with what the majority are seeing, and arrange things accordingly.

Anyway how about this reworking of your text as a compromise?:

Headings follow a six level hierarchy, starting at 1 and ending at 6. The level of the header is defined by the number of equal signs on either side of the title. Header 1 (=Header 1=) is automatically generated as the title of the document, and is rarely used within the body. Sections start at the second level (==Header 2==), with subsequent subsections at the third level (===Header 3===), and sub-subsection at the fourth level (====Header 4====)—until six. In general, sections should be consecutive—unless special needs (such as WP:RPP) or typographical considerations justify its usage. Between sections, there should be a single blank line; multiple blank lines in the edit window create too much white space in the article.

--Kleinzach 07:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

If you disagree with the font-weight of H3 compared to H2 then why not ask for that to be changed directly? What am I missing here? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Changed by who? The great typographer in the sky? A perfectly formed, perfectly regular, all-purpose set of headings may never exist - hence my suggestion that we should be flexible rather than bureaucratic in our guideline. --Kleinzach 01:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Changing the typographical weight only occurs in circumstances that justify, this is how you do it on an individual scale <h2 style="font-size:1.4em; font-weight:bolder; border:none">header</h2>[11], on a global one you're looking at a proposal through the technical village page pump to modify MediaWiki:Common.css; but I think you're straying from what the guideline is defined as: a "advisory" "documentation" of "actual good practices"(WP:PG). It's a meeting ground to define what the average article should use. Special circumstances are solved individually. Using a h4 instead of h3 for typographical reasons doesn't bother me, the document tree was designed to be flexible anyway. About the prose, (1) "typographical considerations..." is redundant in my opinion, if the the typographical consideration wasn't for a special need, then it's probably overstepping the guideline; (2) "usage" to "use", it's not that important to me, but it's something we could do to make it sound less pretentious. ChyranandChloe (talk) 04:17, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately these 'guidelines' are increasingly being applied to all articles (not just average articles) as WP becomes more bureaucratic, and increasingly subject to automated processes. This guideline in particular has been used to justify bot runs changing all non-consecutive headline pages (see here).

For that reason it should be made clear that reasons for non-consecutive headers can relate to layout, as well as technical things like WP:RPP as indicated by the operative word 'needs'. Here is a new 'compromise' version which I hope everyone can agree to:

Headings follow a six level hierarchy, starting at 1 and ending at 6. The level of the header is defined by the number of equal signs on either side of the title. Header 1 (=Header 1=) is automatically generated as the title of the document, and is rarely used within the body. Sections start at the second level (==Header 2==), with subsequent subsections at the third level (===Header 3===), and sub-subsection at the fourth level (====Header 4====)—until six. In general, sections should be consecutive—unless special needs (such as WP:RPP) or other considerations justify its use. Between sections, there should be a single blank line; multiple blank lines in the edit window create too much white space in the article.

Regarding <h2 style="font-size:1.4em; font-weight:bolder; border:none">header</h2>: that's fine but realistically very few people will know about it, or be able to use this kind of hitech solution. --Kleinzach 04:58, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

This proposal is an WP:ACCESS problem. Those readers and editors who use screen readers have specifically requested that Wikipedia never skip header levels. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Screen readers! Screen readers? Are you suggesting that a change from h2 to h4 causes the voiceover to stutter or say "Gee, I'm lost" or something? Hilarious! You'll have to give us the when/why/where of your information. --Kleinzach 05:57, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I recommend that you find a somewhat less insulting tone for your communications here.

See WP:ACCESS#Headings for the standards. Note that it's because of how people use their screen readers instead of inherent limitations in the technology. A reader that finds no level 3 headings has no incentive to search for levels 4, 5, and 6 on the off chance that someone might have decided to skip a few levels. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, it'd be a good idea to add a note to this effect to WP:ACCESS to nip threads like this in the bud in future. I quote often get users asking me why I cited WP:ACCESS for a given change; it'd be good for it to be as informative as possible for editors who aren't Useit / W3C junkies. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:41, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) We've hit this issue before. WP:CITE. Layout, for layout's sake, has little reason to encumber the reader. Typography would win out. However. WP:ACCESS, on the other, does have a reason. WhatamIdoing is right. Therefore, I believe we should defer the issue to WP:ACCESS, just as the more exact methods on how to arrange headings for verification was deferred to WP:CITE. This is what I have:

Headings follow a six level hierarchy, starting at 1 and ending at 6. The level of the header is defined by the number of equal signs on either side of the title. Header 1 (=Header 1=) is automatically generated as the title of the document, and is rarely used within the body. Sections start at the second level (==Header 2==), with subsequent subsections at the third level (===Header 3===), and sub-subsection at the fourth level (====Header 4====)—until six. Sections should be consecutive, a second level section should not immediately be followed by a fourth level section—this issue is deferred to WP:ACCESS. Between sections, there should be a single blank line; multiple blank lines in the edit window create too much white space in the article.

WhatamIdoing, usually you're the one doing the prose. Do you want to give it a spin? ChyranandChloe (talk) 04:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree with the following: "a second level section should not immediately be followed by a fourth level section". It's unnecessarily prescriptive. --Kleinzach 23:27, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

You're right, I think. This is a lot of versions, but at least we can take satisfaction that there won't be misinterpretation when the prose is quoted.

Headings follow a six level hierarchy, starting at 1 and ending at 6. The level of the header is defined by the number of equal signs on either side of the title. Header 1 (=Header 1=) is automatically generated as the title of the document, and is rarely used within the body. Sections start at the second level (==Header 2==), with subsequent subsections at the third level (===Header 3===), and sub-subsection at the fourth level (====Header 4====)—until six. Sections should be consecutive such that it does not skip levels from sections to sub-subsections, the exact methodology is deferred to WP:ACCESS. Between sections, there should be a single blank line; multiple blank lines in the edit window create too much white space in the article.

Changed it to "the exact methodology" echoing what was done in the "Notes or Reference" section with WP:CITE. The assertion is qualified to "should" and much more general than the previous version. ChyranandChloe (talk) 05:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

C&C, I think we should consider using actual explanatory notes for some of this content (e.g., the "deferred to WP:ACCESS" bit), because most editors won't care about why this is important enough to mention. I don't actually see any problems with the existing text beyong than the need for an addition along these lines: <ref>Skipping heading levels, such as following ==Two== with ====Four==== instead of the correct level ===Three===, violates WP:Accessibility and reduces Wikipedia's access to users of screen readers and other people who use heading levels to navigate pages.</ref>

Kleinzach, the point is to be necessarily prescriptive, by strongly encouraging people to not break the page functionality for those readers that depend on it. Since your complaint is really about the imperfect choice of font for ===Three===, please work on solving the real problem directly instead of trying to get your workaround approved. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

This is the Manual of Style and this section is about Layout, so I don't agree with an additional clause as recommended above. I also doubt whether deferring sideways to another document is a good idea, it just makes the whole thing more and more of merrygoround rather than what it should be - the online Wiki equivalent of Chicago or Hart's Rules. But maybe it's better to go with ChyranandChloe's version. I guess we all have something better to do than continue this indefinitely. Basta/ciao. --Kleinzach 09:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Joining in late, having seen this simmering on my Watchlist for a while: if people know the reason for a rule, they are more likely to stick to it. So I'd support a proposal to include an explanation as suggested by WhatamIdoing above - though I'd rather see it in the body of the text than as a ref, as more people will see it. PamD (talk) 10:06, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

In accordance to what WhatamIdoing and Klein said. The text is good, what the issue is, is the level of specificity. For example, Klien, to my understanding, wants a more general statement in the body. WhatamIdoing wants some examples. Is it too much to ask for both? I mean, it can briefly mention that it should be consecutive in the prose with an explanatory note providing clarifications, examples and reasons behind it.

Headings follow a six level hierarchy, starting at 1 and ending at 6. The level of the header is defined by the number of equal signs on either side of the title. Header 1 (=Header 1=) is automatically generated as the title of the document, and is rarely used within the body. Sections start at the second level (==Header 2==), with subsequent subsections at the third level (===Header 3===), and sub-subsection at the fourth level (====Header 4====)—until six. Sections should be consecutive such that it does not skip levels from sections to sub-subsections, the exact methodology is deferred to WP:ACCESS.^[1] Between sections, there should be a single blank line; multiple blank lines in the edit window create too much white space in the article.

And in the Footnotes... For example, skipping header levels, such as jumping from ==Header 2== to ====Header 4==== without ===Header 3=== in the middle, violates Wikipedia:Accessibility—as it reduces usability for readers on screen readers who use heading levels to navigate pages.

I've reworded the explanatory notes. ChyranandChloe (talk) 06:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I was impressed with the clarity and brevity at Wikipedia:Writing_better_articles#Headings, and I've tried to emulate that without modifying the meaning. I realize that I'm coming late into a long-standing discussion and I don't mean to be rude -- although I made the changes directly to the article, I mean them as suggestions. Agradman ^{appreciates civility}/_{makes occasional mistakes} 05:50, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] proposed stylistic changes

I would like to a propose some clarifications the "Standard Appendices" section (they're here.) These revisions are purely stylistic: information has been moved, but not removed (except occasionally when information was more appropriately presented at a wikilink). I invite you to modify my version above before implementing all or some of the proposals. Thanks. Agradman (talk) 21:22, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I am asking that this proposal be delayed, if that's okay with you. In the discussion section above titled "Confusing", its covering a proposal for a potentially new section, differentiating between the '"Notes" section' (in exposition) and the '"References" section' (in verification). If this proposal passes, it may then make more sense then to hollistically look at the standard appendices. It looks good. I'm sorry that I asking you to hold this back. ChyranandChloe (talk) 05:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think these changes would interfere with your discussion -- they're purely stylistic. I'll postpone implementing the changes until I get some more feedback, and I especially won't adjust anything related to "Notes" or "References" until the Confusing discussion is done. Agradman (talk) 06:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with the changing of "Websites and online publications are normally listed in the "External links" section instead of in this section," to "It is usually preferable to present websites and online publications in the "External links" section," I actually disagree with the former, but the latter is even worse as it is expressing a POV that not all agree with.--PBS (talk) 10:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Fair point. I will revert that sentence if anyone else agrees with PBS. --Agradman (talk) 13:26, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with PBS: it is less presumptuous to say that this is common than to say that it is preferable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:04, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• OK. Rather than revert to precisely the original text, I made a further change -- but I think this change incorporates the spirit of your concerns (i.e. does not favor a POV). It's here. Of course, I know you guys have more experience with this policy, so I'll defer to your preferences. Agradman (talk) 19:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The diffs page from my recent edit makes my changes seem much more drastic than they really were. I implemented only a portion of what I proposed above -- i.e. only the changes that I thought would be least controversial, and the ones which would interfere least with your ongoing discussion at "Notes and References." In addition, this is my first time editing a style guideline -- I know that edits must "generally reflect consensus" but I'm not sure how that works in practice -- please let me know if I've handled this incorrectly. Agradman (talk) 03:22, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• Me again. I've intentionally made some of the more-impactful edits in a second round (diffs here), so that you can revert them more easily if it comes to that. These most recent changes consist of 1) removing the information on the order/location of appendices from within each individual section (but clarifying it up top), and 2) moving all information on the content of sections underneath the respective section. I'm making it sound more drastic than it really is -- please take a look. Agradman (talk) 03:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• Me again. I made my last change -- renaming the Notes or References section to "Notes"/"Footnotes"/"References"/"Works Cited" . I don't think this will interfere with your discussion at Confusing, but if it really upsets you, here are the diffs. Agradman (talk) 03:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Forward slashes in sections are not a good idea, as URLS use "/" to mean new file. Although that is not the case on wikipedia articles it is for wikipedia talk pages. --PBS (talk) 16:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• hmm, good point. Wikipedia does permit slashes in article names when necessary, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's wise. We could replace them with serial commas -- your choice. Agradman (talk) 21:56, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, we removed "Footnotes" and "Works cited" for cause (namely that they're not commonly used), and I don't support their reintroduction to the section heading. (Note also that MOS prescribes sentence case, so it would be "Works cited", with the lower case letter.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:00, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

This page is getting out of control, creepy, and basics are being lost in a lot of excess markup. I was going to revert a few days back, but there seem to be a few good changes in there. Let's get back to basics, and keep it simple: I don't support these recent changes. Some sort of revert is needed, not sure how far. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• Obviously we want people to criticize our work, but since we've invested a lot of time in it, it's only fair in return that you try to be specific about what you dislike. Agradman (talk) 00:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Slashes are too easily confused for a folders in URLs, a comma or simply the word "or" would have probably been a better choice; but it looks okay. I've read through it, most of the edits aren't that invasive, they're as Agradam said. Stylistic. There are several points of concern as Agradman took the prose out of its original wording, but this would probably be fixed in the thread "Confusing" above. So far only two other threads are active, "Confusing" and "Headings and sections: proposed rewording". The latter, from my understanding, is concluding. ChyranandChloe (talk) 06:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Header prose rewrite

Current

“

Sections and subsections are introduced by headers. Very short or very long sections and subsections in an article look cluttered and inhibits the flow of the prose. These headings clarify articles by breaking up text, organizing content, and populating the table of contents that users can choose to view (the default) or not to view (by changing their Preferences). Headings follow a six level hierarchy, starting at 1 and ending at 6. The level of the header is defined by the number of equal signs on either side of the title. Header 1 (=Header 1=) is automatically generated as the title of the document, and is rarely used within the body. Sections start at the second level (==Header 2==), with subsequent subsections at the third level (===Header 3===), and sub-subsection at the fourth level (====Header 4====)—until six. Sections should be consecutive such that it does not skip levels from sections to sub-subsections, the exact methodology is deferred to WP:ACCESS.[2] Between sections, there should be a single blank line; multiple blank lines in the edit window create too much white space in the article. If the order in which sections should appear in a longer article is unclear, alphabetical or chronological order can be helpful. Alphabetical order is especially useful when sections are divided on the basis of criteria such as country or state.

”

Proposed

“

Headers break an article into coherent sections. They are ranked hierarchically: headers of increasing rank appear with diminishing font size in the body text and with increasing indentation in the table of contents. Usage: A header of a given rank is generated by surrounding text with a corresponding number of equals signs (i.e. =level 1 header= ==level 2 header==, etc., ending at level six). The top of the hierarchy is generally reserved for "level 2 headers," since the "level 1 header" uses the same font size as the article's title. Precede headers with a single blank line. When adding sub-headers, rank them consecutively with the header they appear under, per WP:ACCESS.[3]

”

Agradman, I understand what you're doing is clarifying the prose, but you're removing the prose from its original wording. Brevity is certainly an appreciable quality. However you are changing the original intent. I chose the specific wording in my proposal for a reason. Your changes are no longer stylistic. Under WP:CON I am challenging your edit, reverting it to a stable version that has last achieved consensus.[12] See WP:MOSBETTER is emulating us when they write their guideline, we can't choose a reduction in reasons or description because of this. I expect more from you if you're getting into this. The proposal from the last change is copied to above to make it easier to see what we're moving to. ChyranandChloe (talk) 06:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

As explained above, I don't agree with including the reference to WP:ACCESS, but I definitely prefer the more concise version by Agradman. Any consensus here is shaky at best, and I think ChyranandChloe should have challenged Agradman's version rather than reverted it. ChyranandChloe, please self-revert.--Kleinzach 08:37, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• My apologies, C&C -- it was unfair of me to put the edit directly into the article text, especially considering how long the prior version has been discussed here. I'm happy to discuss my version here first. Agradman ^{appreciates civility}/_{makes occasional mistakes} 12:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
• PS I'd also like to propose further revisions to the first paragraph:

Headers clarify an article by automatically populating the table of contents, breaking up lengthy text, and organizing it into a hierarchy of sections and subsections. They are available in six font sizes, which automatically indent consecutively in the table of contents.

(outdent) Let's break it down:

1. "breaking up text" should be ordered first, the reason goes back to when HTML (the language wikicode is parsed into) was developed for. Before HTML, when papers written by academic or scientific institution were transmitted through the internet, they used to be enormous blocks of text. Headers were originally introduced to make them readable. It's the reason behind whole section.
2. I like "organizing it into a hierarchy of sections and subsections", however the text already introduces hierarchy in paragraph two ("Headings follow a six level hierarchy[...]"). The remainder is the same as the current.
3. "automatically indent consecutively in the table of contents" isn't necessary, because the table of contents is automatically generated, the editor has little control over it. Just a statement that the headers automatically populate the table of contents is enough. The TOC is also mentioned twice.
4. "They are available in six font sizes", goes back to the previous discussion about typographical concerns. The statement feels shallow—almost as if it's telling the editor: just choose the font size that you like. It's also introduced in the second paragraph as "[...]follow a six level hierarchy, starting at 1 and ending at 6."

The prose has to be on the dot. The first two paragraphs, in my opinion, are well written. Anymore of a reduction and it would be loosing the reasons behind it. It's the third paragraph that seems ambiguous. It's describing a concept WP:SAL promotes, for articles such as List of additives in cigarettes usually used inconjunction with Template:CompactTOC8. If you want to work on that, research it out and annotate what each clause is suppose to convey. This isn't a mandate. I don't believe in telling you what you should do. But it helps. Frustration from a lack of articulation, destroys a proposal. There are over five archives of this. I think, Agradman, that you've got something going; but slow down. You won't be unappreciated if you do this. Not a lot people say this, but your analysis is worthwhile. I hope this helps. By the way, it's rude that it takes you nine edits to get your post right, it tells me you didn't think it all the way through the first time, and expecting us to make it work for you.

Kleinzach, consensus is founded on the reasons behind a proposal, judged objectively on its own merits, and talked about civilly. You've failed the last two, and after this post[13], I don't want to help you anymore. Getting your proposal through wasn't easy. WhatamIdoing, PBS, and I could have just said: no; proposed no further compromise and the discussion would have been halted as no consensus. The first question I always ask before I comment on a proposal: is consensus even possible? I didn't rewrite the proposal three times, three different versions, if your first post was as transgressed as your last. "Challenging" is a courtesy that says "I'll play the one asking for the change", it defers my opinion to you. The contrary would have been "done without consensus": you're the one asking for change, you are bringing down guideline stability, get in line and propose your changes like everyone else. ChyranandChloe (talk) 06:05, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

ChyranandChloe you have been civil, but inflexible and unwilling to see to see this from any other point of you than that your own group. You've fought this issue word by word. I haven't disagreed with most of your text, however you were certainly not 'helping' me. Regarding [14], as you know I regarded this as so implausible as to amount to a joke, nevertheless I did ask for more details. As for the rest of your criticism (which is difficult to understand but apparently implies that I was not sincere in suggesting changes to the wording, i.e. bad faith), remember that I have discussed the issue here, without touching the guideline text, without reverting, without edit warring, so I've shown more restraint than you have. --Kleinzach 22:57, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you, C&C, for clarifying. This is my first experience editing a Wikipedia:(policy) article, and I now know I should initiate non-minor proposals on the talk page. However, the consensus-reaching process for policies is turning out to be a bit remote from the things about editing Wikipedia that give me joy; I'll leave the fate of this latest proposal to others.

• However, I need to respond to your statement, "it's rude that it takes you nine edits to get your post right ..." I'll assume you're saying this because I gave off an aura of rudeness by editing directly into the article; but if you really stand behind this comment, I need to disavow you of it. When my writing is strong, it is because of constant revision. I regularly review and revise my past contributions to Wikipedia (including those to discussion pages) hours or days after writing them, because I have discovered over the years that clarity and conciseness are rarely achieved in a first draft. In fact, I think it would be rude not to make these revisions, particularly (as in Wikipedia) where contributions are read by many people. Someone who avoids clarifying past contributions, out of concern for appearing "rude," is being unwittingly inconsiderate. Agradman ^{appreciates civility}/_{makes occasional mistakes} 15:42, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Does any other page describe the function of the header system? If there's a "Help:Headers" page, then we don't need to duplicate efforts. The descriptive details should be somewhere on Wikipedia, but I don't really care what page they're on. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:22, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Agradman, it's rude because this isn't an article, this is discussion—it's like taking back what you said over and over again. It undermines the integrity of your statement. I'm asking you to take the time and think it through, when you keep adding and changing what you've said, it tells me that you don't understand the topic and don't want to research it out first before telling the editors on the page to do it for you. There's Help:Section, WhatamIdoing, I added it to the {{further}}. The page goes into a lot of detail—all the way to PHP, the programming language used to convert Wikicode into XHTML. I think the text here keeps to the points relevant to layout, however, what do you want to change? ChyranandChloe (talk) 21:42, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Here are some possible changes to consider for the existing text, which is clearly imperfect:

• Rearrange the first (current) paragraph, so that first and last sentences (which address "why we have these things") are together.
• Defer the bit about user prefs affecting the table of contents to Help:Section
• Also defer the statement about how many levels exist to that more detailed page.
• Remove (implied) claim that =Level 1= is ever acceptable in the main namespace (it is used on some talk pages, but should not be used in articles).
• Change "Between sections, there should be a single blank line" to indicate that we're only requiring [for ease of editing, if anyone's curious] a blank line before the header. (Blank lines after the header are an issue of editor preference.)
• Change suggested section order to recommend a "logical" order, and name alphabetical, chronological, and geographical as examples of potentially logical orders. (For an example of a geographic order, many lists group entries first by continent and then subsequently in alphabetical order (e.g., ==North America==, which has sub-subsections of Canada, Mexico, and the United States). WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:03, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Overall, I think that the second paragraph under 'proposed' is better than the current text, although there are a few details (e.g., the last sentence of current text) that will need to be added. It might also be worth adding an explanation of the {{-}} template, since that's what's usually driving the unnecessary blank lines. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:03, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree that the text under proposed is better, most of it is wording. I'm looking to define the terms rather than being purely prescriptive. WP:MOS is basically a checklist of most of the goals listed here. Here, we're given greater discretion over how to document what it means to layout an article. Help:Sections gets into burdensome programming language, it looks like it was written for developers and administrators managing MediaWiki (the software running Wikipedia) rather than editors. WP:LAYOUT defines the terms, and in this case, what a header is; for example, why sections start at header 2 rather than header 1 (yeah, I know discussions such as Talk:Main Page uses header 1). Although its less common now, I've seen some confused editors use header 1 for their sections. In a less common case, it won't be unreasonable for an editor to attempt to use header seven.

I agree with your six points. However I can only tie point one and five to a direct edit to the prose. I mean the current prose seems to be compatible with most of your points. How do you want to re-assemble it? ChyranandChloe (talk) 01:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

In 2 and 3, for "defer", read "omit entirely on this page, perhaps with a pointer to another page".

In four, change "and is rarely used within the body" to "is never used in the body of articles".

In six, change "If the order in which sections should appear in a longer article is unclear, alphabetical or chronological order can be helpful" to "If the order in which sections should appear in a longer article is unclear, choose a logical system, such as ordering sections alphabetically, chronologically, or geographically."

WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Disagree with points two and three. I do not believe that to "omit entirely" is appropriate. The number of levels that exist and their purpose is important to the development of articles. For example, without the context that there are six levels and to tell the editor not to use the first, would be telling the editor not to do something without the context to comprehensively understand what it is. The definition is important, it defines the terms that the text is going to use.

In point four. When I wrote the text, I had to qualify the assertion. "never" would create the logical fallacy dicto simpliciter. Read literally, "never" implies that editors never make the mistake and the header level has never appeared in the body. However, I think I get what you're getting at, how does "should not be used in the body" sound?

I like point six, its an improvement. However, "is unclear" doesn't seem articulate. When is it "unclear"? Also, "logical system" seems ambiguous: it seems to imply that if an article were not using a logical arrangement (alphabetical, chrono, geo...), it would be illogical. To my understanding, when an article uses an alphabetical, chronological, or geographic arrangement—it's a list, or it's in some way a type of list. This allows us to defer a portion of the text to WP:LIST and WP:SAL. This my question: what are you trying to apply this to? For example, are you trying to apply this clause to something like List of sovereign states, the section "Geographical frequency" in Epidemiology of autism, or both? ChyranandChloe (talk) 03:55, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Four needs to be strong, although perhaps not absolute. "Never appropriate" might be an acceptable compromise between factual accuracy and leaving no doubt in the readers' minds about whether it is acceptable.

Six might be resolved by simply dumping the entire text. It doesn't have any significant bearing on the layout. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm good with six. I would have said it had little significance—its still a part of laying out article, but probably too specific and its scope to narrow to be in the GTL. Point four looks good. I agree it needs to be strong, but I don't like "never". "Never" is still and absolute, however appropriate seems to qualify it. This reminds me of when I was reading through the W3C's docs, they have a systematic way of writing recommendations. For example, it works on a gradient of something along the lines of: "never", "should", "must", and "always". It's done.[15] ChyranandChloe (talk) 04:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for following through on that. As usual, I'm open to ways of rephrasing this statement if a less absolute, but equally effective, way of discouraging the =Level 1= error can be identified. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) How does "not appropriate" sound? It's either appropriate or not appropriate, I don't think we need to qualify the assertion with "never" or "rarely" anymore than we have to. ChyranandChloe (talk) 02:50, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Requesting assistance

I've come here to ask if anyone overseeing this part of the WP:MOS could offer their expertise in a discussion going on at Talk:Canadian Forces casualties in Afghanistan#Reference list continued. It is regarding the exercise of those policies that guide the order of appendicies at the bottom of an article. Some extra input would be appreciated. Cheers. --Miesianiacal (talk) 03:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I think you've got it covered, your proposal looks good. Its a new way of looking at things that isn't covered by WP:LAYOUT or WP:CITE (WP:CITE might be more appropriate now if you have any more questions), and I think WP:LAYOUT should to keep a tab on you guys. ChyranandChloe (talk) 20:17, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I added a comment at the end of Talk:Canadian Forces casualties in Afghanistan#Proposal. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] In-paragraph see also?

Is there a guideline for formatting a "see also" link when it's not at the beginning of a section, like so:

Many railroads were built thereafter (see also: history of railroads in Chicago), and soon a hog could cross the country without changing trains in Chicago but a passenger couldn't.

--NE2 09:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

If there is a guideline on this, I've missed seeing it. I might consider a footnote as an alternative to an inline parenthetical remark. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC)