Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Layout/Archive 7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Need of Change in the script. (talk) 10:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)(A mistake in the website namely known as\malayalamname.puranooru instead of purananooru) Thankyou.

Position of navboxes

I'm not sure I always agree with the instruction under "Standard appendices and footers" that navboxes should go after notes, references, further reading and external links. What if the navbox is a list of links to related topics? Surely the logical place is then the "See also" section. (talk) 04:11, 26 December 2009 (UTC).

The Navbox suite was designed to be placed at the end of the article. Is it logical to place them in the "See also"? Yes, but one emerging practice is for Navboxes to replace the "See also", not to supplement it. For succession boxes, there has been a proposal to write a new template that'll go in the article or in the "See also" rather than the end, the same might occur for Navboxes.[1] ChyranandChloe (talk) 04:55, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Since navboxes stretch across the width of the page, they look quite ugly if placed anywhere other than the very end of the article. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 16:18, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't particularly agree with that. (talk) 12:14, 27 December 2009 (UTC).
I concur that the boxy presentation of navboxes make them suitable only at the very end of an article. - Bevo (talk) 19:15, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
We have 4 main types of "See also these articles ..." page elements: Navboxes, Categories, SeeAlso sections, and SisterProject linkboxes.
It would be great if they were all clearly integrated/supplementary/mutually-supporting/etc. I've suggested something similar a few times in various places, but neither I nor anyone else has come up with a good technical&social way to achieve that.(afaik)
The precedent of ExternalLinks going at the very end of all articles is too ingrained/popular to really challenge. So, unless we manage to move the categories up the page, it makes about as much sense to leave the Navboxes at the end (just above the Categories - drawing useful attention to them), as it does to move the Navboxes up the page to be inside the SeeAlso section. -- Quiddity (talk) 21:08, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
I think that sister projects are frequently better considered as (slightly odd) external links rather than a "See also" issue. Such links should basically never be placed under ==See also==, for one thing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:33, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Frequently an article will not have an ExternalLinks section. In these cases, Sisterprojects are frequently linked from the SeeAlso section (or occasionally the References sections). Eg Western_Chalukya_architecture#See_also and Yamato_class_battleship#See_also and Battle_of_Cape_Esperance#References and Richmond_Bridge,_London#References and Early music of the British Isles#See_also. (all but the last are FeaturedArticles.)
I don't have time to dig right now, but I'd be curious when the admonition to only place these Sisterlinks in the EL section was added to this guideline. I recall dispute, but not what it was over exactly (Wasn't someone adding Wikiversity or Wikibooks/Cookbook boxes to article leads, or something?). Can someone point us to the background? -- Quiddity (talk) 21:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
I believe it was discussed repeatedly -- here, at WT:SISTER, and at WT:LAYOUT. You can search the archives if you want to see some of the earlier discussions.
As a general rule, we don't create an ==External links== section just to place the large graphical templates to sister projects in it (primarily because most editors think that a section that contains nothing more than a right-justified image looks silly), but if the EL section exists, that is almost always the right location.
In the absence of an EL section, the large templates are placed at the top of the last section in the article, whatever that section is: If ==See also== is the last section (e.g., in an unreferenced article), then it might legitimately be placed there. However, in theory, there should be no unreferenced articles, and therefore the links shouldn't ever have an opportunity to be placed there.
(When considering FAs, it's important to consider the date of the FAC. Once upon a time, there was no consensus on the best way to display these links, and one of the reasons for the discussions on this point last year was the existence of directly conflicting advice on this point.)
The rules are different for disambiguation pages, some inline ("pipe trick") links, and certain other situations; for the details, I suggest reading WP:SISTER. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:53, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Note: The summary and linkroundup was at Wikipedia talk:Layout/Archive 6#Re: External links. Sorry for causing a long tangent ;) -- Quiddity (talk) 00:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
The text probably should be updated. Wikipedia:Layout#Standard appendices and footers links to Succession boxes which can be included in article sections or at the bottom of an article. For example, see Hypertext Transfer Protocol which uses {{HTTP}} and {{IPstack}}. --Tothwolf (talk) 05:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
When this seems appropriate (which is IMO fairly uncommon but not actually rare), then editors are still allowed to use their best judgment. We're trying to tell them the normal practice, not to provide a comprehensive list of every possible option. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:11, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Separate order for succession and [other] navigation boxes?

I'm not sure whether I agree with the most recent change: Succession boxes are navboxes and thus can't really be listed "before" navboxes. However, if this way of listing them makes more sense to people, then my quibble is unimportant. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:11, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

At present this is a distinction with a difference, inasmuch as succession boxes appear in the print version of articles and [other] navboxes don't. (I think both should show in the print version. But that is just me.) Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 22:31, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


Hi i am recently new to this site. I was wanting to make a ribbon for a friend of mine so that we can raise awareness to her cause and i dont exactly know what to do can you please help me

Mistyskyebatemon (talk) 00:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)misty

This is not the best page to discuss such things; I'll leave a note on your user talk page in a minute. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:45, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Recently added external links

It seems to me that these excellent suggestions for the content (as opposed to the positioning or graphic look) of section headings should be moved to wp:Manual of Style#Section headings. Any comments before I make that move? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 14:21, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Appendix order

Could someone point me to the discussion that prompted this change? Эlcobbola talk 13:51, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

It's a simple reversion to the long-standing form, which was changed without discussion by the previous editor.
This section really only appears in authors' and artists' biographies. One of the rationales is that the "List of books written by Jane Austen" is properly part of the article about Jane Austen (not part of the sources we used to create the encyclopedia article), so it should be with the article, not the footnotes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:19, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for explaining. Эlcobbola talk 15:45, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Further reading

Will anyone object if I add that "You should use the template {{further reading}}" for the "Further reading" section? MC10 (TCGBL) 03:01, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, because it's instruction creep. Editors "should" use that template only if they want to. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:53, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
So no objection if the change is to "You may use the template {{further reading}}"? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 13:07, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
None from me, at least.
On a related point, the template's doc page would benefit from a simple description of what it's supposed to do. If an editor can't figure out what it's for, then s/he won't use it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:05, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
I've updated the /doc page so that it's more clear what it's for. MC10 (TCGBL) 03:27, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Two blank lines before the first stub?

The Layout guide currently says, "the first stub template should be preceded by two blank lines". Why is that? I've tended to use only one in my editing and never had any problems. The stub style guideline only says, "It is usually desirable to leave two blank lines between the first stub template and whatever precedes it." This suggests that it is only a matter of taste regarding the number of blank lines, and not any technical reason, so it is similar to all the other article layout element like headings, references, external links, and so on. I would suggest that we remove this suggestion of two blank lines. It is not needed. Let editors choose what they like: one, two, or a hundred. Jason Quinn (talk) 17:19, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

It's been the advice for a long time, so presumably it represents someone's impression of actual practice. Is it really worth mentioning, instead of instruction creep? I don't really know the answer to that question, but I'm inclined to think that it's creepy. (I'd oppose a hundred blank lines, though.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:49, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

1 blank line.

2 blank lines creates a <br> (linebreak) in the rendered page. This is useful to visually separate the stug-tag from the actual article content. It isn't 'required' anywhere, but it is generally helpful for accessibility purposes. eg Eve Titus vs Anne Manning.

I wouldn't object to any tweaking of the wording to reflect its "recommended" status (instead of "should be"), but would object to wholesale removal of this advice.

An alternative to potentially consider, is adding 2 blank lines (or a <br>, or similar) to the beginning of each stub template. (best raised elsewhere though. WP:STUB or WP:WSS). Possibly this has already been considered? Let us know what you find out :) -- Quiddity (talk) 19:40, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

There was some discussion on this at Template talk:Asbox, but it went nowhere. You would need some CSS to detect the first instance and add the spacing; similar to what was done for navboxes. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 21:19, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Found it: Wikipedia_talk:Stub/Archive_11#Lines_before_stub_template. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 21:22, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Book links

Should books be treated like portal links and put in the see also section (or the first appendix)? Dabomb87 (talk) 21:33, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:39, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
OK, I've specified that in the guideline. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:41, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Question relating to portals

I have posted some questions and comments related to portals at Wikipedia talk:Portal#Question relating to portals. I am interested at getting other comments/opinions related to the use and maintenance of portals. --Kumioko (talk) 16:44, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Maximum value of minimum text width

There are at least two navboxes that are too wide to fit in small windows: Template:Mental and behavioral disorders has a minimum width of about 130 characters as currently formatted, and Template:HolmesFilms needs about 110. They both have multiple levels of heading and long words or unwrapped phrases. I've reformatted both of them to fit in under 100 characters, but both have been reverted by people who use small text fonts and/or large monitors. Here's Mental and behavioral disorders as an example:
Original, standard format
Flexible, compact format
Should there be some official preference for making text boxes convenient for readers who use mobile devices, small monitors, or large fonts? People with good eyesight and big flat-screen displays don't seem to care about this issue. The Images section of this page mentioned fitting images in an 800x600-pixel window. Should editors be encouraged to make text boxes so they fit in text areas around 80 to 100 characters wide? —Codrdan (talk) 03:44, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

My initial reaction is that the so-called "compact" form is not compact at all: When I set my browser window to be fairly narrow, it's two screenfuls. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:31, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
I said "compact", not "magic". If it's not too much trouble for you to do a fair comparison, you'll find that the original format is also two pages long and it doesn't even fit in your narrow window. —Codrdan (talk) 12:14, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
My observation matches WhatamIdoing's observation. --Arcadian (talk) 17:49, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
So does mine, but that's irrelevant to this discussion. The fact that two pages of content fills up two pages is trivial. It has nothing to do with width or compactness (minimizing whitespace), and it does nothing to compare the two formats. —Codrdan (talk) 18:10, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Is "magic" an available option?
Could we, for example, have multiple show/hide subcategories? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:35, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Well, I guess {{Navbox with collapsible groups}} does that. Anyway, the standard format is even worse for narrow windows than the above-heading format is. Making the box width flexible is important for readers with small screens, independent of whether it involves collapsible groups, breaking long unwrapped pieces of text, or any other tricks that might be useful in individual cases. —Codrdan (talk) 13:57, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

See also

Could somebody explain why the references should be buried below the “see also” section. The latter merely lists titles of related pages and is not part of the article text. Never should it contain statements requiring refs, but this arrangement only encourages such a conflation. ―AoV² 07:30, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

See footnote 4 at wp:Layout. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:44, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Also, it's worth remembering that in a well-developed article, ==See also== is most likely brief or non-existent, so nothing is "buried below" it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:08, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


I've seen a complaint that an editor introduced multiple show/hide sections in ADHD recently (of the "click here to read the next two paragraphs" kind). I'm pretty sure that is explicitly prohibited, but my quick scan didn't find anything here. Does anyone know of any relevant guidelines? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:53, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

MOS:SCROLL might apply. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 06:46, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


Please note that this page has been nominated to be consolidated with the primary Manual of Style page. Please join the discussion at the MOS talk page in order to discus the possibility of merging this page with the MOS. Thank you.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 20:57, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

The only way I would support merging this page into the MoS would be if it's done properly. By this I mean a complete merge of WP:Layout AS IS, in its ENTIRETY into the MoS. Some editors seem to have it stuck in there heads that a merge means that they have to cut and chop and mess around with a page that has already gone through years of collaborative editing to make it as perfect as it can be, and by the time they're done with their "merge" the original page is half the size it originally was with half the detail. This really frustrates me because all those prior editor's work to shape the page has been in vain. Best thing would be just to leave it as is IMO. -- œ 01:58, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Is this now a dead issue? Should we remove the tag off of the article page? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 23:46, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


"Bibliography" is discouraged because it is not clear that it is limited to the works of the subject of the article.

Who discourages it? -- PBS (talk) 07:34, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

PBS makes as good point; the term "bibliography" is appropriate when more than a handful of "further reading" items are involved.Rjensen (talk) 07:48, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
The term "bibliography" is ambiguous, as it might refer to a "List of works produced by the article's subject", eg William Gibson#Selected bibliography, or it might refer to a list of "Further reading" or "Major references used in this article". Hence this MoS and other MoS pages discourage its use for "References" or "Further reading" sections, and in certain cases discourages it for "Works" sections (at Wikipedia:Layout#Works or Publications). See also Category:Bibliographies by author.
A key example being this thread itself, where Rjensen seems to be assuming that PBS is talking about a "further reading" section, when in fact he was quoting the sentence from the "Works or Publications [by the article's subject]" section. !
Search the archive here for older discussions about same. HTH. :) -- Quiddity (talk) 19:19, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Who discourages it? Well, for one obvious group, the editors who have written and maintained this guideline for several years now. For another, the APA, MLA, CSE, and Vancouver style guides all reject "Bibliography" as the heading for a list of references used to support content. Among major style guides, only CMOS (preferred by historians) recommends it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:17, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
I have looked at the MLA, CSE, Vancouver and other manuals of style, and the online guide from Purdue; they all explain how to set up bibliographies. Only the APA Style calls for a list of references instead of a bibliography. The allegation the others "discourage" needs some evidence from WhatamIdoing|, please. Rjensen (talk) 10:52, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
The style manuals mentioned (except Chicago) are geared toward articles in scholarlhy journals, which is not Wikipedi'a role. We're more like paper encyclopedias. So I checked a row of encyclopedias at the library and can report that the numerous multi-volume and large-scale encyclopedias published by Scribner, Macmillan, Gale, Sharpe, Simon & Shuster, Harvard and Oxford use the term "Bibliography" for their guide to literature at the end of articles. That demonstrates it is an established term in the encyclopedia world. Rjensen (talk) 06:00, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
  • APA style: "In APA style, the alphabetical list of works cited, which appears at the end of the paper, is titled References."[2] (used by sociologists and psychologists)
  • The MLA Style Manual: "Center the title Works Cited about one inch from the top of the page."[3] (used in humanities)
  • Council of Science Editors: "Center the title References (or Cited References) and then list the works you have cited in the paper; do not include other works you may have read."[4] (used by scientists)
Nope, I'm not finding any indication that these styles even permit "Bibliography". Only the historians—that would be your particular academic field, wouldn't it?—seem to use "Bibliography". WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:19, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Getting back to the original question, Whatami's first answer is the one that counts: the editors of this guideline. And Quiddity explains why: the term is ambiguous. Now, of course, there is the added factor that most articles have followed this guideline (however misguided it may be) and Wikipedia readers now expect to see "Works" or "Publications" for an author bibliography and "Further reading" for a non-author bibliography. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 02:42, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

See Also

I would recommend a policy of some redundancy such that some links in the articles should be or can be repeated in the "See also" sections. The reason is, PEOPLE SKIM. Skimming an article is very common. I find "See also" extremely useful when skimming Wikipedia: it saves much time. I'm sure all could see and agree that if such lists become too long they become a hindrance. But five "see also"s with two of them already in the text, would be an actual improvement, to me, over the current recommendations to have no repeats. Mydogtrouble (talk) 14:21, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

This guideline isn't really important until a Featured Article review. Articles bloat, and when the See also fills up, removing the redundant seems reasonable. The guideline defers "editorial judgment", your judgement. Articles are varied. If you can justify that certain links would be helpful in the See also, especially when the See also is small and undeveloped, then I think you're free to do what you believe is best. ChyranandChloe (talk) 23:40, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
I wholeheartedly agree with the first comment by Mydogtrouble: Web analysts will all agree that if people can't find information on a page quickly, they may drop their search and not find the information at all. That's worse than the presence of an extra link in a "See also" section which doesn't clutter the article. For that reason I highly recommend that this article on "layout" should add a qualifying statement which allows redundancy if it helps skimmers. I'm not an administrator, so I'm not sure if I am allowed to touch this page. But I beg those who are qualified to change the page to please add such a qualifying statement.
Also, that same qualifying statement should be added to this policy on "overlink" - Sincerely, - Boyd Reimer (talk) 13:28, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
You are allowed to touch this page. If your change is reverted then follow wp:BRD. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 18:55, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Boyd, I'm not sure that the problem you want to solve actually exists. This page says, plainly, "whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense." It does not say that redundant links are prohibited. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:28, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
The problem is that editors frequently purge see also sections citing this "regulation" as the reason. As long as it is written this way, every item on every page that is mentioned elsewhere in that article is a continual struggle to preserve. -AndrewDressel (talk) 23:47, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Sure: And then you say, "Have you read the 'regulation' you're citing recently? It explicitly permits editors to include so-called redundant links if, according to the editors' judgment, it seems desirable. I think that these links improve the article because..."
It's very rare that we encounter edit wars or unresolvable disputes over this point, especially once all the editors involved know what the actual rule is. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:06, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
If there is a built-in escape clause, why have this guideline at all? Why require that this discussion occur over and over again? What is the original source for the assertion "links already integrated into the body of the text are generally not repeated in a "See also" section"? Is an edit war required before a change can be made? -AndrewDressel (talk) 13:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
At this guideline, the choice is either (1) to provide zero information about what the community normally does/thinks best, or (2) to provide accurate information about the current consensus. Accurate information about normal/best practices requires a statement about the principle of non-redundancy. It also requires a statement that this isn't a hard-and-fast rule. We have chose both statements over letting editors guess what the community's usual view is.
The fact that the community normally avoids redundant links isn't disputed. The fact that some articles benefit from redundant links (e.g., if the 'redundant' links were three screens ago, and there are no relevant navboxes) also isn't disputed. It has been discussed many times on this and other pages, with no signs of a change in community consensus.
Edit warring is not required. Editor education -- that's the bit when you say something like, "Have you read the 'regulation' you're citing recently? It explicitly permits editors to include so-called redundant links..." -- is what Wikipedia needs. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:56, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

MoS naming style

There is currently an ongoing discussion about the future of this and others MoS naming style. Please consider the issues raised in the discussion and vote if you wish GnevinAWB (talk) 20:53, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Significant change to Further reading

Where is the consensus for this change? I'm starting to see users place the reference sources under "Further reading", which previously explicitly prohibited it. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree with that change. Further reading has historically been for sources that aren't used in the article. Having sources that are used mixed in with those that aren't make it difficult at a quick glance to judge the quality of the sourcing used in the article. Karanacs (talk) 17:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
I've reverted most of the change. Consensus supports non-duplication (under normal circumstances). WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:47, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Note that "further reading" is entirely external to Wikipedia. Not sure why it merits a separate section from any of the other externals. Student7 (talk) 00:33, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
I have prepared a lot of material for "further reading" and think of it as an integral part of the text. The material is prepared by editors while writing the article. For example the books chosen often expand on ideas or people mentioned briefly in the article. External links are very different--they were prepared by non-editors who had other goals in mind; that is, those outsiders did not design their stuff as a supplement to the Wiki article.Rjensen (talk) 00:50, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Everyone who changes a Wikipedia article is an "editor." So be careful of wp:OWN. That said, some editors are definitely more dedicated to the quality of article content than others, and you are clearly one of the former. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:59, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Rjensen, I see that some of the articles you've worked on have remarkably lengthy Further reading sections. However, your complaint about websites ("prepared by non-Wikipedians who had other goals in mind") is exactly as true about the dozens of books you list: They were none of them written by Wikipedians, and their authors didn't have Wikipedia in mind, and they didn't write their books as supplements to the Wikipedia article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:06, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Most of my Wiki contributions are to history articles. The selection process is part of writing the article. I would say that I reject 10 books for every one hat makes the cut and is recommended to Wiki users in the Further Reading; I usually know something about the book already or else I check its reviews before listing it. In every case it is a title I can recommend as a RS. The selection is based on the thrust of the Wiki article (e.g. pay more attention to books on topics that the article covers in greater detail). I try to tailor the list to the needs of the Wiki users. (four examples: 1) I give priority to books & articles that are entirely or partly online, such as JSTOR or Amazon or 2) I pay more attention to the best RS and avoid popular stuff that is not as reliable--if it is popular I annotate it that way; 3) annotations tell something to help the user who might want to order it inter-library loan; 4) I like to recommend recent reference books that will help the user explore more widely and which are likely held by college libraries). It's like when an editor chooses an illustration--these were not created by editors but they are an integral part of the article because the editor selected them to match the content of the article & meet the needs of Wiki users. Rjensen (talk) 02:48, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
The only significant difference between "Further reading" and "External links" is that the former is printed works, the latter is internet sites. The important difference between these and the references is that the references are a complete list of the works (whether printed or online) from which facts were obtained when writing the article; by contrast, nothing was drawn from the FR/EL works. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:41, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
When the editors contribute to an article they draw from lots of sources that never make the footnotes. (That's obvious in the many many articles that have few or no footnotes.) Rjensen (talk) 13:54, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
A separate issue is new articles with "references" at the bottom from which the article, hopefully a stub, is drawn. We try to make allowances for poorly cited material for new articles hoping it will be supplemented "soon."
But the difference between hard and soft copies, aside from ease of assessiblity, is getting a bit blurry. I don't mind having them in a separate list just to avoid the confusion of comingling print with virtual, but establishing a second level subtitle for each of them, seems a bit much. IMO they should both be demoted to third level under "externals" since neither of them are Wikipedia-based. A matter of style.Student7 (talk) 13:12, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that this conversation has drifted from Redrose64's initial comments. I see "Further reading" as a convenient halfway house, for references that are no longer in an article but may go back in, or for books or articles that may be useful for expanding an article. But I don't think that usually sources in the Reference section should appear in further reading. Indeed one of the processes I go through when improving articles which do not have a separate "References" and "Further reading" sections is to see if there are books in the References section that are not cited in the footnotes. If not I look back through the history and if the book was added to References section without an addition to the text of the article by the editor who added the book, I move it into "Further reading". This helps clarify what was and was not used as a reference to write the article. Doing that helps any reader to know what was used to compile the article and it is of great help for any editor who wants to improve the article by adding inline citations from the sources in the reference section. It is misleading for our readers if say one source was used to write an article (eg text copied from 11th edition of EB) but half a dozen article are listed in the References section.

Personally I don't like external links sections because I think all sources at the bottom of an article should be formatted as if they were in the References section (with author, title, publisher, date etc). I think external links should be reserved for non text entries such as pictures and vidio clips etc. -- PBS (talk) 13:16, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Your limitation makes sense. Right now, I am usually forced to allow just about anything in the externals that someone wants to slam in there. I can't easily check hard copy. I try to exclude WP:SPAM. That is pretty much it. I am greatly relieved when someone boldly erases all the externals claiming (usually correctly) that the list has grown too long. It is nearly impossible to use an unstructured list longer than ten items. By "unstructured" here I mean no subheader like "History:" or "Museums:" or whatever to help direct a new reasder. Student7 (talk) 19:25, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
You don't have to accept everything. Check WP:ELNO, and remove those that fall foul, leaving an edit summary like "removed per [[WP:ELNO]]". If they then complain that one of those removed was a source for the article text, point them at WP:CITE. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:46, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
One of the keys points of this particular edit linked at the very beginning has been missed: the idea of adding commentary on each of the further reading listings. My concern for this rather unprecedented move is that it automatically violates WP:OR or WP:NPOV to allow editors to "assess" or "sum up" these works... Granted, listing anything already is a form of assessment... --Midnightdreary (talk) 15:09, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
agreed that OR is unwise. What the editors should do is summarize the consensus of RS regarding the item (such as the book reviews). That of course is always the main job of the editor, summarizing the RS. Most annotations are of the form "this book covers the 1820-1840 period with an emphasis on diplomacy and is 220 pages long".Rjensen (talk) 15:30, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
I like the above suggestion about summarizing! It is valid amd provides communication that is now lacking. Someone using the refenence is eventually going to get back and say "this ref doesn't say that at all!" allowing us to remove it. Right now there is no mechanism for removing mediocre referemces.
As a practical matter, I watch Vermont. Glance at Vermont#Bibliography. I can't really maintain this thing. I know I would keep Ira Allen, a history from the 19th century, suspect Coffin book is a classic. But what to make of Duffy, Doyle, Rodgers? They may be good books but are they all 'that classic? I don't need explicit help here, just trying to illustrate the problem, which could be solved in the long run by implementing Rjensen's suggestion. Worth thinking about. Student7 (talk) 20:11, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

External links and Wiktionary

I have restored the wording about Wiktionary and Wikisource. These two projects were started as spin-offs from this project, to remove certain type of articles from the encyclopaedia, and as such it is quite common for links to words and works to appear in the text where appropriate.

As a general rule we do not write articles on words, so if there is a word which an editor thinks may for some reason not be familiar to a general audience, they will link to to the that word in Wiktionary in the text for example the phrase "seised in fee" or "pettah" are not ones that most people would know, but they do not qualify for an articles, but it would be silly to insist that links to the words should be placed in the external links section of the article. If I do not know what a word means I do not go to the external links section of an article to see if a link to it has been placed there!

Similarly there are times when links to wikisource makes sense, for example if there is an article discussing the legal issues of mercenary soldiers it might be desirable to place a convince link for our readers to Article 47 of Protocol I in the text of the article, as it saves cluttering up an article with a quote of the text from Wikisource in the encyclopaedia article which was the reason for creating Wikisoure in the first place. -- PBS (talk) 12:52, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Seems appropriate. Most editors are not aware of which projects are "sister" and which projects merely have "wiki" in front of it. These editors automatically assume (for place names, for example) that WikiTravel must be inserted. I'm sure there are dozens, if not hundreds of others using wiki formats. Is there any way to suggest that these might be better screened before inserting "automatically?" Normally I hate negative assertioms, but I wouldn't mind one here!  :) Student7 (talk) 19:15, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Actually i'm not really convinced that this is a good idea. Spinoff or not wiktionary and wikisource are external projects from logical point of view, since their content, rules, regulations and ultimately reliability are not controlled by the wikipedia community. Hence they should be treated like other external links or sources.--Kmhkmh (talk) 00:15, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Sorry but that is not how it works, as you are free to log onto those other sites and fix any errors you come across (your account is/can be shared across the project (see Special:MergeAccount). Have you done any work on the other projects because I find that the ones I work on have similar levels of quality checking to this project. Your logic would lead to all images from commons being placed at the bottom of the article because wikicommons is an "external projects from [a] logical point of view, since their content, rules, regulations and ultimately reliability are not controlled by the wikipedia community." -- PBS (talk) 00:50, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean by that's not how it works. Are you telling me Wikitionary and Wikisource are not separated from WP? I agree however that Commons is the one exception here, it is true that Commons is logically separated as well, but contrary to the other wikimedia projects it was explicitly set up as a shared media repository and hence its material is not a link as the cases above but it is directly displayed with the WP article.
Btw i'm not arguing the quality of Wiktionary or Wikisource is necessarily inferior, just that that it is not controlled by the WP community due to the logical separation. We do not link to other (logically) external projects either, just because we are convinced their quality is alright. As far as wiktionary is concerned however, to my (limited) experience it is far less sourced than WP for instance.--Kmhkmh (talk) 08:07, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
PBS is saying that the official Wikimedia Foundation projects (our "sister projects") all get treated distinctly differently than any other worldwideweb site. E.g. we use {{wikt}} to link to a Wiktionary page as soon as it exists - it does not have to meet any kind of "better than a stub" type of quality standards.
This is partially due to Wikipedia:Unified login, and the shared communities and principles, but also for a variety of other reasons that I won't attempt to summarize here. If you wish to challenge that premise&practice, then this isn't a good location to do so; I'd recommend the Village Pump, or WT:MOS, or Wikipedia talk:Wikimedia sister projects, or somewhere on meta.
Just because we're the biggest of the sister-projects, doesn't mean we get to treat the others poorly. HTH. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:23, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't see how treating them as logically external project is treating them poorly. It just reflects that there separate projects with their own specific goals, rules, standards and authors/communities. Also this question is merely about whether they should be used as Interwiki links in wikipedia and not whether they should be treated as external sources in other regards.--Kmhkmh (talk) 21:37, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
I can appreciate your concern, but these are "sister" projects, not merely "some wikilink" project for which some unknown entity is using similar grammar. They are trustworthy. See Wikimedia Foundation. Student7 (talk) 13:38, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
No, they are not "trustworthy"; they are Wikis, hence not reliable, and they should be used very sparingly, if at all, in text (except for images). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:38, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
SandyGeorgia beat me to it here. See WP:SELFPUB. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:47, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
For those of you who do not know SandyGeorgia and I disagree on this issue before. Sandy by you logic we should not link to other wikipeida articles because they are not reliable! This is not citing them as reliable sources, it is about linking to them as we do to Wikipedia articles. Why do you make a distinction between commons and other sister projects? Wtmitchell what has WP:SELFPUB got to do with it? -- PBS (talk) 04:49, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
So what Sandy Georgia is saying is that Wikicommons (only) is reliable outside of English Wikipedia? (And of course, we are using Wikipedia as links, not footnotes).
I have used Wiktionary for years. Seems accurate but seems to be missing the transparency of construction that we have here. Don't know where the stuff comes from. And it's hard for me to get excited about Wikinews since they are so blasted breathless there. I would cheerfully ignore it! So I could be convinced. But we need a statement one way or the other someplace in the policies. Wikimedia Foundation is hardly a policy but it does establish, er, brotherhood, I think. Student7 (talk) 19:09, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

@PBS (and @Student7 partially as well): You are correct in doubting SandyGeorgia's argument, in fact there are 2 or actually 3 different issues getting mixed here namely:

  • a) links as interlinks within the article's text
  • b) links as sources (in footnotes, references)
  • c) links to external urls being of some interest in connection with the articles topic (external link section)

SandyGeorgia's was making a correct argument about b) (wiktionary is no source), however the argument here is about a).

Nevertheless as far as a) is concerned it has been a (long) established practice that interlinking should remain within wikipedia and that links outside WP are placed under references/footnotes if used as sourced or under external links otherwise. Note that all other Wikimedia project are sister projects but they are still logically separated projects and in that sense external. Note that the unified login doesn't change that all, these WM projects still have their own local login administration, but more importantly their own community, authors, goal, rules and practices and though there is an a considerable overlap they are by no means identical. The difference between commons and another WM projects (including WP itself) is, that Commons is designed as shared multimedia repository and it usually provides mulitmedia material as content and not as interlinks to WP.

So why shouldn't we link to (logically) external projects, well because the WP community does not control external projects (even if they are within the WM foundation) and to provide a uniform behaviour (interface to users, all interlinks stay within WP). As far as the quality argument is concerned Wiktionary is not a reputable source, so from the quality aspect you probably would better link to other external projects like or various publically available "authoritative" dictionaries. Also I hardly see any practical reason to have interlinks to Wikitionary, since we don't want to turn WP articles into a blue landscape by linking somewhat regular vocabulary and as far as technical terms or most very particular words, which you usually want to link, are concerned, they could/should have their own WP article anyhow.

Also note that this has nothing to do with WP being superior or better than other WM projects, it is merely a question of logical separation and uniform linking behaviour.--Kmhkmh (talk) 21:01, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Let's take Wiktionary by itself. My prime non-Wikipedia site. 1) there are words that may not be understood by everyone or are obscure that don't have articles and never will. The article would be just too small. The explanation of the word would distract from the article. Particularly since the majority of people might understand it. There seems to be a hole here since Wiktionary is off limits. 2) There is a template:Wiktionary. Seems to me that this shouldn't exist if links are truly not allowed. 3) Wikimedia projects should be explicity disallowed since they have sometimes been used in the past and anyone can make that same mistake. Student7 (talk) 12:39, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

"Reception" section

WP:ELMAYBE says "Professional reviews should ... be used as sources in a "Reception" section." Is this something we should be saying on this page as well? Or, because the Reception section is part of the body of an article, is it not for us to mention? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 20:10, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Separate 'Notes' and 'References' sections

See Marco Polo's birthplace where I discovered this. Is this within the guidelines? And can a 'note' be to a tourist site that we wouldn't allow as a reference normally? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 17:43, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

The Notes section in that article are explanatory notes, not references, which are listed in the References section; see WP:REFNOTE. A link to a tourist site would be places in the External links section, if it is directly relevant. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 18:05, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

::Not really notes is a section for footnotes which can be either references or or explanatory notes. Some authors prefer to separate general references/sources for the articles as a whole from specific references/sources for individual statements, in such cases the specific references are in the notes sectionand the general references are in the references section.--Kmhkmh (talk) 18:20, 10 August 2010 (UTC) sorry prematurely saved while editing, see below for the intended comment--Kmhkmh (talk) 18:31, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

How do you get that from the guidelines? And are you saying you can use sources in 'notes' that you can't use in 'references'? That would blow a hole in one of our basic policies. Dougweller (talk) 18:25, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Not a difference in reliability, a difference in citation style. Similar to "Further reading", except works listed there are not intended to verify article content. Skomorokh
I think that's more a matter of taste apparently here the author wants to visually distinguish between explanatory notes and "real" source citations. However other authors would probably lump them all together under a section titled notes or references. Yet other authors prefer to separate general references/sources for the article as a whole from specific references/sources for individual statements, in such cases the specific references are in the notes section and the general references are in the references section. So the use of those section varies slightly. Of course you cannot use that for smuggling in unwanted sources. However a tourist website is not an unwanted source per se, but it depends on what it is used for. You could certainly use it as primary source for the fact that croatian tourist industry claims Marco Polo being born on Korcula. Of course that comes with all the caveats that the use of primary sources brings along.-Kmhkmh (talk) 18:20, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Have a look at Westcott railway station#Notes and references, which reached FA-class in May this year. The FAC crew would surely have complained. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:53, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm lost, the FAC crew is who exactly and pushing what format? As far as I'm concerned that article and the section titles are fine.--Kmhkmh (talk) 19:36, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
The people who review all Featured Article Candidates. They don't push any one format above another; but they are picky about meeting WP:MOS. An article cannot attain FA-class unless they're completely satisfied. Basically: if they don't complain about the notes/references style in an article that's up for WP:FAC, there's nothing wrong with it. Westcott railway station made it through FAC with both notes-as-notes and notes-as-short-references, as well as long references, so its notes/refs style must be OK. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:28, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
I've tried to mix true text footnotes with true in-line references before, both with <ref> xxx A</ref>. It was not a universally popular move with all editors. I thought it got rid of extra "stuff" that some might find germane, others not. The way Dougweiler has revealed, at least the two are separate, for whatever good that does. Frankly, I'd rather see them merged. Student7 (talk) 02:13, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Nothing is or will be popular with all editors. If you want "notes" and "references" in one section just do so and if you prefer them separate sections just do so as well.--Kmhkmh (talk) 02:41, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Kmhkmh: The True™ citation presentation style is the subject of holy wars, and WP:CITE lets you do just about whatever you want.
Student7, IMO the one advantage (only sometimes implemented) with separate sections is that you can change the appearance of the refs so that the reader knows which refs lead to explanatory notes and which to citations. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:55, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

See also include links to categories?

Folks, a question has arisen over links to categories in the see also section at Sequoia National Park. WP:SEEALSO doesn't specifically prohibit links to categories, but I've never seen them implemented and the text of WP:SEEALSO only refers to "articles," not any other kind of content. Links in a see also section are there usually because they haven't been included in the text (yet) in a reasonable way. I don't see how it would ever be necessary to include an internal link to a category within the text. The three categories mentioned above were (as styled):

Could anyone here clarify? How do you see the current wording of WP:SEEALSO applying to this situation? Could you see any reason to include see also links to categories? Any thoughts are appreciated. Rkitko (talk) 02:47, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Generally not a good idea for obvious reasons, but not prohibited. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
Why is it not a good idea? —hike395 (talk) 03:24, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
There is nothing wrong with linking to a category within a See also section (or even the body of an article) and this is not something that has ever been prohibited. For a simple inline link, prefixing with a ':' is sufficient: [[:Category:See also templates]] although sometimes piping the wikilink can be more aesthetically pleasing: [[:Category:Internal link templates|Internal link templates]]. Within the body or a section of an article, it is generally preferable to use one of the special purpose templates such as {{Category see also}}, {{Main category}}, {{Related category}}, etc when linking to categories. We also commonly link to Wikimedia commons categories in See also sections using templates such as {{Commons category}}, {{Commons category-inline}}, {{Commons cat multi}}, {{Commons and category}}, etc. --Tothwolf (talk) 15:26, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
I believe the Commons links typically go in the External links section. The category templates you mentioned are meant to be used on other categories to improve browsing ability, not to be used on articles, as far as I can see. I've never seen in-line links to categories within articles, whether it be in a see also section or in the body of the article. As I wrote on my talk page, I could think of a few reasons why such links wouldn't be the best idea:
  • A link to a category leads the user to content that is not meant to be directly edited. A similar list article "see also" link may be appropriate where a category is not since the user is taken directly to content that has prose.
  • Categories are meant for browsing related subjects. Categories cannot include extensive explanatory prose, nor can they include links to articles that don't exist, whereas a list of flora and fauna can include information on species Wikipedia does not yet have articles for.
  • And finally, all links in the see also section are typically thought of as links not yet included in the body of the article. A "complete" article should not really need this section. So the question asked is would you include direct links to categories in the prose of the article? I don't see anywhere that you could or should. It would also likely be considered an WP:EASTEREGG link if piped.
Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 15:38, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Despite the slight misinformation in WP:LAYOUT#External links, Commons category linking templates are also used in See also sections. No, the templates I mentioned were not designed strictly for category navigation. See:
I believe you might actually be thinking of templates such as {{Category pair}}, {{CatPreceding}}, {{CatSucceeding}}, etc which generally are used exclusively for category navigation.

To cite one of many such examples, it very much makes sense to link to categories such as say Category:Missouri State University alumni from Missouri State University#Notable alumni. I see nothing wrong with the category links you've removed from Sequoia National Park [5] which followed a similar scheme and I'm beginning to feel that you may have come here with your mind already made up that such category links in See also sections were verboden. While the wording of WP:SEEALSO is certainly not ideal (and very much should be updated and refined to reflect actual usage), the wording as currently written includes the term "article" because historically that was the most common wikilink type associated with See also sections. There have been similar arguments in the past over linking to the Portal namespace (such as, but not limited to {{Portal}}) in See also sections. We also had major problems with well meaning editors removing links for Wikipedia:Books when that was first introduced (prior to the creation of the dedicated Book: namespace, when it still used the Wikipedia: namespace). I created the original {{Wikipedia-Books}} and {{Wikipedia-Books link}} templates after seeing a well meaning editor bulk remove several hundred Wikipedia:Books links from articles. Portal and Book wikilinks are usually not inline within an article, but are instead placed in an article's See also section. (That said, Books wikilinks are occasionally done inline or as a hatnote or footnote in a section within an article, when it makes sense to do so.) --Tothwolf (talk) 17:28, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

To be specific, the category templates you mentioned above certainly imply usage only in categories, e.g. {{Related category}} says "In most cases, Template:Related category should be used on both categories to create reciprocal linkage between the two categories" and is used for horizontal linkage among categories. And the "pragmatic example" at {{Category see also}} implies the template is used for easier navigation of sub-sub-categories that may not be apparent to users. I believe I was clear in my opposition to inline category links in a see also section. I came here looking for other opinions and more input since there was a disagreement at one article, and for clarification of the text at WP:SEEALSO. As I understand it, see also links are meant to be content, not navigation based. Why have links throughout the article to other content, then, if all you need to do is plunk a few links to categories in a see also section that contains all related content? Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 17:43, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Wikilinks within the See also section are meant to enhance the reader's experience and to help the reader better understand the subject, which of course includes wikilinking to related material which the reader may find helpful. If a wikilink to a category which contains a number of related articles will help the reader find additional information, it should be linked.

There is also no hard and fast "rule" that topics which are already linked somewhere in the article itself should never be linked in a See also section. If a wikilink to a related topic is buried in a section of a large article, it can make sense to still include a link to that related topic in the See also section in order to make it more visible to a reader.

WP:SEEALSO explicitly states: "However, whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense" and "Links included in the "See also" section may be useful for readers seeking to read as much about a topic as possible, including subjects only peripherally related to the one in question."

Put simply, Wikipedia exists for the readers, not the editors. If it will help the reader to include a particular wikilink in the See also section, it should be included. If a wikilink would not help the reader, it should not be included.

Just because documentation doesn't always reflect actual usage doesn't mean that the way something is done is wrong. It often means the documentation needs to be updated. Since you mentioned template documentation above, template documentation in particular is often badly neglected and incomplete. Oddly enough, the See also sections commonly seen in template documentation often include wikilinks not only to other Templates and other documentation, but also wikilinks to Categories. --Tothwolf (talk) 11:46, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

It's generally not a good idea because categories are used for navigation, not information. There would need to be some kind of reason why you'd direct a user to meta-information like a category. Generally because a good overview article doesn't exist and should. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Links to categories like {{commonscat}} are definitely useful, however personal I'd rather place them under External links section, although they are sister project they are nevertheless logically external, since the sister projects have their set of rules and agendas and are not controlled by the WP community as such, despite a significant overlap. The See also section should only contain links to other WP articles.--Kmhkmh (talk) 17:50, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

We are also discussing internal links to Wikipedia categories too though. In actual practice, the See also section contains not only internal wikilinks to other Wikipedia articles, but also internal wikilinks to Portals, Books, etc, and when it makes sense to include them, internal wikilinks to Wikipedia categories.

For Commons categories, actual practice has been to place templates such as {{Commons category}} in the External links section if it is already present, but if a populated External links section is not present and a See also section exists, {{Commons category}} is instead placed in See also. The reverse also holds true for floating box templates such as {{Portal}}, {{Wikipedia-Books}}, etc. If a See also section does not exist but a populated External links section does, then such templates are typically placed in the External links section. This makes sense in that you otherwise end up with a more cluttered user interface due to unused section headings that only have a floating box template in them. --Tothwolf (talk) 11:49, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Well is see no point to essentially place it External links unless it is freely floating. Arguing if External links does not yet exist put it under See slso makes little sense, there is no problem with simply adding the External links along with adding a category. As far as internal categories are concerned I rarely see a scenario where this would be useful, in most cases the article belongs to associated categories anyway and the article needs to cattegorized rather than adding a category link under See also. In the few cases where it actually deems useful to an editor to add an internal category link under See also, he should just do so. In don't think we need a special regulation for that.--Kmhkmh (talk) 13:05, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

The Category:Flora of the Sierra Nevada region (U.S.) was recently created and [to-date] populated by me. I also did the edit, that is being discussed here, placing it and the Category:Fauna of the Sierra Nevada (U.S.) links under ==See also== in the Sequoia National Park article. I've seen this cat. > link done for the readers' benefit in other Protected areas' articles, in the U.S and abroad, that have a meager or non-existent natural history section or are without any directly specific independent flora/fauna articles.

To date the flora/fauna sections in the present Sequoia National Park article are very under-developed for readers interested in learning more.

Regarding the links' sufficient specificity to Sequoia National Park questions:
If one opens the specific [plant species] articles in Category:Flora of the Sierra Nevada region (U.S.) and then under ==External links== opens the " Jepson" or "USDA" links there are: range maps - Jepson very detailed by ecoregion-habitat and USDA [after second click on CA state in U.S. map] by counties; and descriptive geographic text. To not rely on the original research of personal experiences I opened those before adding [Cat:Flora of the Sierras] to those articles when populating the cat. and a preponderance have ranges including Sequoia National Park's various elevation determined plant habitats. These Cat:links do not go to a species Easter egg hunt in a mega-category. This is specifically why, for the readers' benefit which surmounts the editors' general category link and style standards-preferences, that these two "see also" links do belong in this park's article.

I respect the many editors' time to consider and express their views, insights, and [far superior to mine] knowledge of wiki-style and policy resources on this topic. If I'm understanding correctly, a See also > category link is to be used only with reticence after deliberate consideration.--Thank you--Look2See1 t a l k → 18:45, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

"See also"s linking to categories

It seems implicit in the statement, but editors have been adding category pointers (with a bit of effort!  :) to 'See also" subsections, instead of creating a separate article (list). Should this be explicitly banned? Student7 (talk) 21:21, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that this is always a bad idea, especially for cats whose contents don't lend themselves to a reasonable length of a list. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:34, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Lille Comics Festival

Can someone fix the layout in the Lille Comics Festival article? The EL section is in between the section heading for the Location table and the table itself, even though in edit mode, it's not. I don't know how to fix that. Nightscream (talk) 10:11, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

 Done The stray '-' in the '|-}'at the end of the table was the cause. --Tothwolf (talk) 10:59, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


I noticed that Etymology sections are often the first section after the lead. I assumed this was common but am not seeing anything in the MoS. An editor has suggested moving the section to the end of the article since it seems like trivia. I disagree but didn't want to push it if I am incorrect about past precedent. Any thoughts? The article in question is Bukkake (not work appropriate).Cptnono (talk) 22:41, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

The most common style, is to give a sentence fragment definition after the first usage, and then expand upon the etymology in the first section. See Australia and Saffron and Rongorongo and Narcissus (plant) and Vulva (NSFW) for some examples. Of the pages I looked through, only BDSM has the section lower down, and I think it is unhelpful all the way down there (although it is especially large).
Afaik, there's no recommendation anywhere in the MoS, it is simply common format for it to be one of the first sections. One reason that section often appears so early, is to give the reader more context as to the word that they are about to read numerous instances of. Eg, at herpetology, it helps to introduce the notion that herpeton originally meant "creeping animal" in Greek, fairly early in the article, so that this nuance is in the back of the reader's mind as they read the rest.
At the article that you're asking about, I think having the etymology early helps to reinforce the original meaning of the word, and is more likely to get across to the reader that the word has mundane uses in Japan, and is only appropriated for the purely sexual meaning in other countries.
HTH. -- Quiddity (talk) 03:38, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


If there is no External links or Further reading sections, should there be an empty line between {{Reflist}} and a navbox for readability when editing? McLerristarr | Mclay1 01:15, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Here is one solution, not universally accepted. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 03:32, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
That's an unusual approach, but it has been used in a small number of articles, e.g., this one. It apparently creates problems for the WP:1.0 team's offline copies, so I wouldn't recommend it for an article that you expect to be included (a combination of higher quality rating and higher priority).
A blank line is a simple solution. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:10, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I suggested adding a blank line below {{Reflist}} at WP:AWB/FR but I was asked if it is actually policy to do that. Is there any reason not to add a blank line? McLerristarr | Mclay1 05:50, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem with readability without a blank line and the use of forced blank lines is discouraged. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
Subject to someone correcting me, I think that it is fair to say that there is no policy prohibiting or requiring this. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 20:34, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
And consequently, enforcing it through an expansion of AWB is probably not the right approach.
If you personally think that a given page would benefit from an extra blank line, then feel free to add it. But let's not standardize on that for all articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:47, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

List order variant?

From the end of WP:LSC:

When the list includes a short introduction and a longer list, it may be advisible to include a "See also" section, that shows related lists and articles, after the introduction and before the list.

Is this a good idea? Has anyone seen this done? Do we need to accommodate that variant layout here? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:59, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Good idea? I'd say the concept is good but, perhaps, we should recommend to the editors of that article that they change "See also" to "Related lists" or something similar. Seen it done? I haven't. But then I'm not much of Wikipedia list voyeur. Accommodate here? My vote would be "no." Except, perhaps, to say somewhere that "The rules in this guide may not apply to specialized articles such as, for example, articles that are stand-alone lists." Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 04:16, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
I agree with that analysis, and cannot recall any examples of the idea in practice. -- Quiddity (talk) 05:12, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

How about we just take it out of LSC, and thus provide no advice (anywhere) on the point? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:46, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Further reading

I wish to propose a radical change to Wikipedia. I think we should delete the further reading sections of articles. There does not see to be any point to them. If the links or books were not used as sources, then all it is is advertising. If people want to find more information on a subject then they can look on their local library catalogue or something. Besides, the goal of Wikipedia, in Jimbo's words, is to be the source of all human knowledge. If there is any more interesting and relevant information on subject, then it should be included in an article, which makes a further reading section pointless and just a place for people to list their own websites on a topic. What are other people's thoughts on this? McLerristarr (Mclay1) (talk) 11:45, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

You are proposing a "nuclear option" solution. An issue must be significantly harmful before that solution is warranted. If individual articles have problems, then either clean them up, or list them here specifically so that we can have a less abstract discussion.
There are a number of Featured Articles that have "Further reading" sections (eg the recently promoted articles Tosca and Cotswold Olimpick Games and Tarrare and Sentence spacing), and proposing to just delete them all, because some other articles contain inappropriate content, is not a positive move.
See also, Template:Further reading cleanup (63 articles currently tagged), and a number of relevant threads in Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (layout)/Archive 6. HTH. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:22, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
I am in favor of deleting "Further reading." It seems pretentious to me anyway. And a bit incoherent. "I can't explain to you what you really wanted to know. You are too stupid - you'll have to read this book."
It is incapable of being edited (scrutinized by other editors). If you add something that isn't relevant, I have no idea, nor does anyone else. Edit-ability ought to be considered here.
Readers eyes glaze after a few entries anyway. Anything "over ten" I would guess, but since I can't really check entries anyway, why have any? Student7 (talk) 19:53, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't see that as a valid argument: they are just as capable of being checked as those print sources which are cited among the references. The refs section of a recent TFA has "over ten" books among the references; this is surely just as likely to cause readers' eyes to glaze over? --Redrose64 (talk) 20:18, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Student7, what's wrong with you that you can't read hard copy? Don't they have libraries where you live? Does your firewall prohibit Google books and bookseller websites? Or when you said, "I can't really check", did you mean "I can't really be bothered to check"?
I find your assertion that it's impossible to check on these entries distinctly unimpressive, but even if it were true, it wouldn't matter: Wikipedia needs someone to be able to check these entries, not every single editor.
I have seen a few good uses for ==Further reading==, including providing full citations for documents that are mentioned in the text (e.g., "Smith's 1905 publication scandalized the country..."), but not cited directly. I see no reason to prohibit them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:50, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
If it says "Smith's 1905 publication scandalised the country" then you have to reference Smith's 1905 publication, so it needs to be included in references rather than further reading. If there is any information in a book that is interesting and relevant to the topic it should be included in the article, if not, then don't mention it. The Further reading section is completely pointless. There is no reason to promote other people's works that weren't used in the article, surely that's in violation of WP:NOTADVERTISING. According to that, external links to relevant organisations and companies are fine, but it doesn't mention random books on the topic that someone found interesting. There are plenty of websites that provide good lists of books on a particular subject; Wikipedia does not need to be one of those sites. McLerristarr (Mclay1) (talk) 01:48, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
If information is given, then yes it should be referenced. But that is not what "Further reading" is about. We can't drag every single fact from every single relevant book, because if we did, we would surely be in breach of copyright. After all, we're not here to write the definitive account - professional authors do that; what we should be doing is stimulating peoples interest so that they can then go and read the definitive account written by one or another of these professionals.
If I were a professional author, and I found that a book that I had written had had the bulk of its content taken, rearranged and made available on the free Internet - I would be contacting a solicitor specialising in copyright law. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:58, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes: A claim that a publication scandalized the country should be referenced.
No: A claim that a publication scandalized the country should not be referenced to the original primary source. You cannot cite "Smith 1905" to support a statement about the reaction to Smith 1905. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:29, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
This is why Wikipedia fails at its mission to be the source of all human knowledge – because people are so concerned with being concise and not including too much information. In my opinion, we should include every fact from every book. As long as you re-write something in your own words and reference it, you cannot breach copyright. No one can copyright information. McLerristarr (Mclay1) (talk) 05:53, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
RedRose is correct in stating that a list of external references appear as "valid" as an embedded print reference. The problem (in part) is credibility. Text "shows up" with an appended ref. I may be familiar with the item (or disinterested) and often don't check. But what to do when 5-10 external print refs "show up" in a list someplace? I don't know why they just showed up. Did someone just think of it? Got homework from some professor and decide to insert every one s/he was given? What was the point? Are they all valid and important or just some joke by a wayward vandal?
I have no idea nor any easy way to check. I don't have infinite checking capabilities. And no, like most people in the US, I do not edit in a well-stocked library. Anyway, going to a shelf and pulling down some book to ascertain whether it should stay on some list, seems a bit beyond most of our editing capability. Therefore, the lists are not usually scrutinized. Junk stays on there sometimes for years until someone actually uses a book and discovers it shouldn't have been on there in the first place! Student7 (talk) 19:46, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
However, the same goes for inline-ref print citations. If you aren't verifying them, then hopefully someone else is.
This is why we need humans to write the encyclopedia. It requires judgement and decision, an understanding of context, and large quantities of caffeine. -- Quiddity (talk) 22:57, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
I think fthe further-reading and external-links sections fulfil a useful function, but when I look at articles like Morgenthau Plan I think more quantitaive guidance at WP:Further reading might be appropriate.--Boson (talk) 23:28, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

McLerristarr (Mclay1) you wrote above "If it says 'Smith's 1905 publication scandalised the country' then you have to reference Smith's 1905 publication, so it needs to be included in references rather than further reading". This is in my opinion a good example of a candidate for further reading. The citation should not be to "Smith's 1905 publication" but to a source that says it "scandalised the country". Smith's book should not be used as a citied source, because it says nothing about scandalising the country. However for someone who wishes to go into the scandal in more detail, then more bibliographic details about Smith's publication would be useful and the place to put such details is in further reading. -- PBS (talk) 23:29, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Further reading are supposed to be reading recommendations by the article authors, I see nothing wrong with that and no reason to block authors from creating such sections. True, at least in theory such a section could be abused for hidden advertising but that applies in the same fashion for references themselves, because you can favour/push certain publishers or authors there as well. Most references citing some textbook X could of course cite textbook Y instead (and often there might be 100s of Ys available for a particular article content). I'm rather skeptical of yet another rule for authors regarding how they have to name their sections and paragraphs or what information to compile.

As far as WP goals are concerned "collecting the knowledge of the world" does not mean that we collect any possibly interesting information on some subject. This should be obvious since we do not write textbooks on those subject but encyclopedic articles (containing the most important aspects in a concise and accessible manner)--Kmhkmh (talk) 00:36, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

The problem may not arise with the authors discussing this topic! The problem arises with newbies who hurl a book they just read (or were forced to read) on a list without having any idea whether it is "classic" or simply a run-of-the mill textbook for beginners.
If we don't like an entry, we frequently follow a web link to the site and find out what the link says. Most of the editors here know darn well that about 10% of the time, the link is either bogus or doesn't quite say what the article says (which is why the editor checked on it - didn't sound right). I'm not arguing against all print references - they can't be avoided. But the "further reading can be." Yes, some PhD or candidate, might be able to weigh in with a single inspired list. But most entries are (most likely) not in the "inspired" category at all. We just don't find out that they aren't. Student7 (talk) 13:48, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Don't get me wrong, but essentially you arguing, we cannot have such a section, because others (well meaning but misguided or less well meaning spammers) might abuse it. That however is true for any WP section or the article as a whole, hence imho not really a convincing argument and definitely not a reason to block informed author for creating a well designed further reading section. But those sections in doubt need the same maintenance as other sections of an article, i.e. once in a while you may have to (re)check and clean out unwanted stuff, that was added later (carefully though). I agree that it can be annoying and it occasionally pisses me off as well with articles I'm watching/maintaining myself, however it is fundamental characteristic of WP and something we have to live with (to a certain degree at least).--Kmhkmh (talk) 15:59, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
In historical articles, we often have a short summary of a vast literature -- on World War II for example, or Abraham Lincoln or Napoleon. There are many thousands of books on each of these topics. Wikipedia is a good place to begin, but many users will want to move on, and use library collections or perhaps purchase their own copies. If they go to a library catalog, they will be presented with thousands of titles on the Napoleon, say, with no indication of the quality or usefulness or level of presentation. Wikipedia's "further reading" section is a short listing -- from 2 to 50 titles, depending on the length and complexity of the topic -- that allow the reader to move forward. Since college and local public libraries have limited collections, it is often useful to have enough titles so that a user is likely to find a few of them on the shelves.Rjensen (talk) 01:46, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
I somewhat agree and i support the principal option for such a section as well, however I slightly disagree towards its purpose/use, imho further reading is intended to be a short list of the most important/best suited reading suggestions on the subject, it is not meant to be an excessive list reading or even a bibliography, i.e. 50 titles are way too much, normally it should be rather single a single digit number or close to it. In other other words it is a quality not a quantity selection. If in some exceptional cases there's a need for very extensive reading list, I'd prefer to see that outsourced into its own article rather than blowing up the original article artificially.--Kmhkmh (talk) 08:09, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. For example, most of the articles in Category:Bibliographies by subject could be thought of as expanded "Further reading" sections, and are usually shared between multiple articles (thus preventing mass duplication). -- Quiddity (talk) 18:38, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
It would be a tremendous step ahead, if we can agree to limit the size of the list. Do I hear nine? Sounds great to me. The next editor would have to subtract one before adding her/his entry to the list. I like this. Most newbies aren't going to be able to prune the list. Only knowledgeable editors can (usually). This is doable. Student7 (talk) 13:57, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
is there a shortage of space here? The problem with a short list when dealing with a major topic in history is that it severely limits the usefulness to students. I have in mind high school or college students who want to do a term-paper for a class. The paper has to be on a narrow topic ("History of World War I" will not work). Usually the book has to be available in the library. I just checked a couple standard guides (Melvyl and "Historical Abstracts") and found over 1500 scholarly books and articles on the Glorious Revolution of 1688 in England. A selection of 2% seems about right to get the student going. We should not omit journal articles--the better ones are immediately available to college students through academic libraries (which subscribe to JSTOR and similar), so that the student can start browsing right away. Rjensen (talk) 14:46, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Well your approach definitely has some merits, however there's the question, whether WP is the appropriate place for that. Extensive reading recommendations, that you would compile for a class or lecture on subject or for people interested in doing thorough research on subject are a bit out of place in an encyclopedia. Wikiversity or Wikibooks might be a more appropriate for that. Having such extensive reading lists would is imho not quite in line with the general spirit of the guidelines (WP:NOT and others) and the notion of many other editors of what WP should be comprise (traditionally encyclopedias do not have extensive reading lists). Of course one could argue to expand the scope of WP in that regard, after all WP is not paper. However such an expansion would have to be discussed and decided upon by the community at large. If the article's (main) author wants to add a short list of reading recommendations that's fine by current practice and guidelines. However if we are talking about compiling extensive reading lists and adding them to articles in general as you seem to suggest, that's imho not really covered by current practice and guidelines.--Kmhkmh (talk) 20:42, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Nope. Further reading and External links are different, and should stay that way. If we have ELs and Further reading run together, they each will be much harder to control, leading to even worse problems with link farms. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:43, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
What I'm recommending is that "further reading" (which is common in most encyclopedias) should be a section that helps users who want to delve "further" into the topic. Speaking now just of history articles, the vast majority of these articles will have 1 to 4 items. However the big topics (like Napoleon or Lincoln or the world wars or Vietnam war) are very hard to students to grasp--the library catalog will have hundreds or even thousands of titles that are unselected--so our further reading list for major articles should have a couple cites for each main section. Rjensen (talk) 00:36, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
I think most editors would be fine with 1-4 items, but not with excessive list not even for larger articles. Again purpose of encyclopedic article is not provide reading lists for students and class rooms. If you take an article like Napoleon it suffices imho to provide a few important biographies on Nspoleon and may 1 or 2 to books on his era. If you look at different sections of the Napoleon article, you will see that they usually link to a separate main articles, which deal with those section topics in greater detail. Those main articles are the places where reading recommendations for section topics should go rather than in the Napoleon article itself.--Kmhkmh (talk) 01:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
the primary use of encyclopedias for the last hundred years has been to help students in their studies. With the enormous proliferation of online sources, it is now more necessary than ever to help students. Forcing editors to choose the two most important biographies of Napoleon, is the formula for edit wars, controversy, ill will, and disservice to our readers.Rjensen (talk) 02:31, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Again, most of the articles in Category:Bibliographies by subject could be thought of as expanded "Further reading" sections, and are usually shared between multiple articles (thus preventing mass duplication).
In this case, we already have a good section in the Good-rated article Napoleon I#Further reading. The larger view can be seen at Historiography of the French Revolution. HTH. -- Quiddity (talk) 02:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
I beg to differ, the primary use/goal of encyclopedias was never to support students in their studies in particular. The primary use of encyclopedia was/is to be a (general) knowledge reference work. And again Wikimedia has separate project such as Wikiversity to target students and the learning process in particular. Otherwise I agree with Quiddity, that if extensive reading list are created at all, they should be outsourced into their own articles.--Kmhkmh (talk) 02:58, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
1) Comparing us to a "regular"encyclopedia usually works and often in our favor. But, in this case, we are amateurs. A regular encyclopedia has paid scholars qualified to suggest further reading.
2) People have often suggested to me to "read" so-and-so. I often did (in the old days), then wondered why. Usually a waste of time and never covered my interests. Another reason, IMO, to limit size of list.
3) Students can use footnotes as a more valuable example of what to read. Those have often been checked and are clearly germane to the article. For controversial material, at least several editors agreed. Student7 (talk) 20:17, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Regarding 3): Footnotes are not reading recommendation but sources. Their purpose is merely to verify the content or a particular sentence or section, but that does not mean that the cited source is a recommendable literature on the article's subject or a good read for students. In many cases they are anything but a good read on the article's subject.--Kmhkmh (talk) 21:06, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Random break in Further Reading discussion

I am now coming by this Manual of style talk page section after seeing a discussion on the talk page of a thoughtful editor about the rationale for and usefulness of further reading sections in Wikipedia articles. Most professionally edited encyclopedias have further reading references at the end of their articles. That seems to be a general characteristic of many of the subject-specialized encyclopedias that are acquired by academic libraries. Take a look around in the academic library reference section nearest you and see how many specialty encyclopedia sets you find. Then look at the articles, and observe how often an encyclopedia article in a dead-tree encyclopedia has a bibliography at the end of the article suggesting books readers could read for more information on the subject. The Wikipedia Manual of style section on the issue makes clear enough that this has been routine practice on Wikipedia for years as well. What I try to do when editing further reading sections is to put well researched, meticulously edited references into them as I discover those references, and then eventually (sometimes many months later) dig into those sections for sources for further edits of article text. Most of the 5,496,276 articles on Wikipedia need a lot more editing, but as far as I know most of us few thousand active editors are volunteers who are either working or studying full-time besides editing Wikipedia, so it's not surprising that not every possible edit is done at once. Listing a further reading source with an article, as long as it is a well chosen source, has immediate usefulness to every reader of the article (and some articles have hundreds of page views a day even while they languish with no edits for weeks at a time), and it has lasting usefulness to any other editor who surfs by and thinks "I could improve this article if only I knew of a source on this topic." On my part, now that I have gathered hundreds of sources published by major commercial or academic publishers, purchased by major academic or public library systems, I simply don't have time simultaneously to edit all of the hundreds of Wikipedia articles that could be edited on the basis of those sources. I have my particular priority list of articles to edit on my volunteer time between work and family responsibilities. It may be that other editors have fewer means for finding such sources, but more time to use such sources once someone else finds them, so that if one editor shares a reference to a source or sources in an article further reading section, then other editors can use their volunteer time productively updating the articles based on current, reliable sources. Division of labor helps everyone get more work done more efficiently. I have seen instances of further reading sections being spammed for political or commercial purposes, and I boldly delete sources from such further reading sections (which, fortunately, are not commonplace) if I find them. The main thing is to keep looking for reliable sources all the time that have usefulness for follow-up reading by readers of Wikipedia and eventually usefulness for editors editing Wikipedia. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 19:47, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

WeijiBaikeBianji has said it very well. One problem with this discussion is the contributors have very different pictures in their minds of the articles we are talking about. Just to limit the discussion to history, most history topics have only a few RS--maybe 2 or 3--and usually they will be the sources used by the editors to write the article and so be included already in the footnotes. As a rule of thumb for history articles, let me suggest one to three "Further reading" citations per 1000 words. That way, the great majority of history articles will have three or fewer suggested readings, while the long complex articles will have one or two suggested readings per articles section. other fields, such as the sciences, may well have an entirely different guideline.Rjensen (talk) 20:20, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
(A bit of context: WBB has actually been using further reading sections as a dumping ground for material he hasn't read yet and thinks should be used for sourcing. This includes books which mention the topic only a handful of times across several hundred pages, and causes some BLP concerns.) If there is to be a further reading section, guidelines should be clear that any editions should be centrally about the article topic. If it is a person, it should be a biography of that person. If it is about a subject, it should be a good introduction to the subject - a good place to start - not just any old book on the topic. It should not be a place to suggest extra sources for the text, which is precisely, by his own admission, how WBB is explicitly using the section.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 23:57, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
VsevolodKrolikov, please take a deep breath and enjoy the rest of your weekend before making further unwarranted assumptions about how I am using sources as I edit Wikipedia. I read the sources that I refer to in articles. The sources relate to those articles, even if they are at first posted just as further reading sources, rather better than many of the fudged sources I have seen in various articles on various topics on Wikipedia. Naturally, it is entirely legitimate for editors (while observing the assume good faith conduct guideline) to discuss sources with one another, and to say, "What do you see as the relevance of that source to this article?" But right now one thing that very few of the 5,496,276 articles on Wikipedia suffer from is too many sources. Quite the contrary, most articles are starving for sources and citing a source that devotes three pages (with footnotes) to the topic of the Wikipedia article directly, and perhaps a whole chapter to the context of the topic of the Wikipedia article, is much better than rejecting the source because the title of the source implies that it is "mostly" about the topic of some other Wikipedia article. A lot of careful nonfiction writers who are practiced researchers can put in one book material that could easily improve twenty or thirty Wikipedia articles—I've seen it done. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 03:08, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
With the greatest respect, your edit summary indicates you do not accept the good faith of others. No one but no one here wants to stop reliable sources being used on wikipedia. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 04:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
  • coment I think the further reading section has its rightful palce in the ncyclopedia. It should be for books that 1. treat the topic of the article as their main focus - not just books that briefly mention it - and that 2. can be uncontroversially agreed on as reccomended reading by the editors involved with the article. Basically the same guidelines as used for external links - there must be wide agreement that external links are directly relevant for them to be included - the same should go for further reading. It should be the kind of book that is logically the next place to read more after reading the wikipedia article. Suggestions of additional sources for other editors to look at can simply be made at the talk page. ·Maunus·ƛ· 01:28, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I think further reading sections are useful in two ways: (1) per WP:NOT Wikipedia is not an exposition of all possible details. Some topics have entire books written about them, and recommending appropriate books (possibly in conjunction with annotations) seems quite useful and appropriate, and as pointed out above is a practice encountered in other encyclopedias. The (2) second way in which the further reading section are useful is identifying source that can be used to expand article which should still be expanded; see {{expand further}} and its TfD discussion. Can/are further reading sections misused? Sometimes they are. Take a look for instance at List of Jewish Nobel laureates#Further reading; most items on that list are one page in length! In my opinion, that's an abuse of the further reading section. Tijfo098 (talk) 06:20, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Some thoughts:

  • We have some articles that list references alphabetically in a References section, separately from the citation footnotes. That is the case with many FAs and GAs. In those cases, a Further reading section may often be dispensable, as most important works will be listed there. On the other hand, here is an FA that was promoted with a Further reading section in place, and the section even contains publications that were used as sources in the article, in violation of the present wording of WP:FURTHER. Here is another one, with a Further reading section containing works that were not used as sources in the article. Barack Obama has a Further reading section. It would be interesting to see how many FAs have a further reading section, and what these sections contain. Can anyone think of a way to generate stats for that?
  • I can imagine scenarios where it might be reasonable to include a work in a Further reading section, but not use it as a source. Imagine for example a notable book of poetry about a person, river or mountain that is mentioned in the article because many other sources mention it, but which is not used as a source itself.
  • Many lower-quality articles don't have a References section, but just list dozens of footnotes, which are very hard to take in for the reader. In those cases I have always felt that a further reading section is useful, and that it may even be useful to the reader to include works that have been used as references in the article. For example, if an academic standard work is listed under Further reading and an editor comes along and cites it once, does it really make sense to remove it from the Further reading section because of that, burying it in amongst 50 other references?
  • One thing we should clamp down harder on is people adding their self-published books to Further reading sections. The current wording at WP:BOOKSPAM is too wishy-washy.
  • It might be useful to have a guideline-level main page for Further reading sections, just like we have WP:EL for external links. --JN466 08:05, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
I certainly agree with that last suggestion. This doesn't really seem to be a "layout" issue. I suppose it wouldn't start out at a guide until the editors have reached consensus. What is the process for developing a guide? Do we start an essay and let it mature? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 13:33, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
You just start it at the location where you think it should be eventually, and add the proposed guideline template. Here is an example: [6]. This is how WP:Plagiarism started out. Cheers, --JN466 21:54, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Probably a different topic, but just wanted to respond to Rjensen's suggestion of 3 cites per 1000 words. He is courageous to suggest this. Also broadminded! Every time I have made suggestions, I've had to fight off attacks! :) My thought would be one cite per paragraph, at minimum. I consider 5 per "page" as robust, but there would surely be exceptions to this in controversial material and maybe some advanced science articles. Student7 (talk) 21:49, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
This looks like a discussion more suited for the newly created wp:Further reading. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 23:06, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Maunus, the problem with the list is that many articles are not developed with a "group" of editors who are at the same level intellectually or educationally. But that might be true for specialist articles, like physics, or philosophy or something. For low level articles, like geography (my forte), people throw in all sorts of things, travel guides which I don't care for, historical and archeological (which I appreciate but cannot verify); etc. The list can be extremely difficult (read: "impossible") to maintain. How to separate WP:SPAM and self-published books from classics in the field. Most of us editors, working in place articles and other "common-knowledge" artiocles, are not able to distinguish one from another. As a result, the lists get totally out of hand. This is particularly true for places in countries which do not have English as a major language.
And Butwhatdoiknow is probably right about moving the discussion. Student7 (talk) 13:35, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

A series of Further reading proposals to discuss

I think an essay would be a good idea for preparing a guideline, but as a few of us are here right now, can we work on some principles? For the moment, are we all (or nearly all) agreed that "Further reading", if it it exists, should consist of good starter texts/foundation texts for any subject? Here are some principles, including ideas on how to deal with spamming and bias:

  1. Should clearly qualify as RS.
  2. Should be a directly focussed overview. For example, on the page for the Renaissance, it would have a general section including books like Lisa Jardine's Worldly goods: a new history of the Renaissance which should directly (and preferably exclusively) address the topic as a whole. Books on, for example, people within the renaissance would not be suitable as they are not an overview. Those books might qualify on other pages. Books on associated topics would also not be suitable.
  3. Subsections can exist in general articles (but with limits, and certainly matching the article structure), and according to the same principles. Keeping with the renaissance example, the music subsection could have a couple of titles like Renaissance music: music in Western Europe, 1400-1600 - again, an overview of the topic. A book about the development of the sackbut would be too specific for further reading in this more general article.
  4. To avoid spam, any book included should have received more than one good review in RS - newspapers and scholarly journals being the norm, and the clear balance of RS reviews should be positive. This would avoid self-publish spamming, POV pushing, and attempts by publishers to get books promoted through inclusion on wikipedia. At the moment "editorial recommendations" as described in the manual smacks of OR.
  5. There should be guidelines on limiting the number of sources.
  6. Neutrality is essential. We may have to work out rules where topic disputes are irreconcilable.
  7. If no appropriate sources exist that meet these criteria - then don't have a section. It's not a necessity.

People's thoughts? VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:18, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

My thought is that this is a good beginning for a Further reading essay if, in fact, that is the first step in developing a new Further reading guide. Is it? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 18:18, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes - I should have been clearer. I've amended accordingly. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 23:54, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that is a good starting point. WP:Further reading would be the right place; you'd have to replace the current redirect with content, but point out in the first line that it is a guideline in development, and leave a pointer to the current section here. --JN466 22:36, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
"Should clearly qualify as RS" probably needs elaboration. The definition of a reliable source depends on the information that it is intended to back up, but the literature listed under "Further reading" is not intended to back up particular statements. --Boson (talk) 23:24, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
I like the look of this proposal. Boson is of course right that not all aspects of the RS policy is applicable to further reading as further reading does not backup any claims. I do think that it is important that further readings are hi9gh quality sources - e.g. books published from respectable presses, that have not been disfavorably reviewed too many times, etc. I think the best way to achieve the kind of policy that we want is by stating that the prime criteria for inclusion is consensus among the editors of the article - and that any books the inclusion of which is not consensus should be left out. This would take care of the POV issue and the Reliability issue at once. ·Maunus·ƛ· 23:30, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Maunus, you wrote, "any books the inclusion of which is not consensus should be left out." Are you sure that that should be chiseled into a Wikipedia content guideline? That would imply a Security Council permanent-member-style veto power for a small minority (it might be a minority of one) who doesn't want a source, however reliable, mentioned. Or is your intended meaning of "consensus" something like a majority of active editors on an article, even over expressed opposition? Because the majority of the articles on which I've seen your helpful editorial skills in action are articles plagued by frequent edit wars, I want to make sure you are not proposing a guideline that limits your own ability to add helpful sources to articles. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 23:45, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure how 'Neutrality is essential' is to be interpreted. For instance, I can imagine articles where it would (in my opinion) be sensible to include "The Communist Manifesto" or "The Wealth of Nations", neither of which could be described as "neutral". --Boson (talk) 23:56, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

O.k., I've moved this discussion over to the new wp:Further reading essay. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 02:06, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Interesting discussion about RS-ness. For example, would Mad in America be a suitable "further reading" at Schizophrenia? (disclosure: I've added the wiki article on the book as a "see also", but unlike a "further reading", the wiki article on the book explicitly has reviews, some quite negative). As another example, I moved The Gene Illusion, which was a further reading at heritability to a inline ref about the existence of a small minority POV that discredits the concept of heritability. I think that as a general rule, it's preferable to deal with POV sources in text (or as "see also" if an appropriate article exists on the source itself) instead of adding them to "further reading", because that can give the impression that Wikipedia is recommending a certain POV. Tijfo098 (talk) 04:13, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I see you've duplicated this comment at the wp:Further reading talk page. That is good. Responses should go on that article's talk page, not here. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 04:37, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
the cite should be annotated to indicate its POV. Users may well want to look at books with specific POV's and in any case they should bealerted. Rjensen (talk) 04:38, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Please move this discussion to wp:Further reading. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 04:41, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


The following section is currently in Wikipedia:Scientific citation guidelines

When referring to one or more textbooks or reviews it can be very useful to give a brief annotation for each entry which indicates the level and comprehensiveness of the reference. In this case, it may be helpful to maintain separate "Notes" and "References" sections, with the Notes section containing the annotations and the References section the full formatted reference. For example:

In cosmology, the cosmic microwave background radiation is a form of electromagnetic radiation discovered in 1965 that fills the entire universe.[1]
It is also possible to provide annotations in other ways: by including them in the references section itself or by including everything in a footnote. If an annotation is particularly long (more than one or two sentences), it may be appropriate to merge some of the information into the main article instead of placing it in an annotation.

There is an ongoing discussion on the talk page there and the general feeling seems to be that the section does not belong there since it's not really about citations (annotation is not referencing) or science. I'd like to propose that the section be moved to this guideline since it's really layout issue. I'd also like to propose the following edited version since in it's current form it's confusing and the example does not illustrate what I think are our best practices.

When an article lists a large number of sources or materials for further reading then it is often helpful to annotate each entry with a brief indication of the type of work it is (beginner, advanced, detailed, survey etc.). For example:

  • J. Smith, Introduction to Linear Programming, Acme Press, 2010. (An introductory text.)
  • D. Jones, Linear Programming Theory, Excelsior Press, 2008. (A rigorous theoretical text for advanced readers.)

--RDBury (talk) 20:33, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


  1. ^ Dodelson (2003) is a modern textbook which contains a comprehensive derivation of cosmic microwave background physics. Liddle and Lyth (2000) and Mukhanov (2005) are other modern textbooks. Kolb and Turner (1988) is a dated but classic textbook. Peebles (1993) gives a comprehensive overview of cosmology and useful remarks and references for the history of cosmic microwave background physics. Hu and Dodelson (2002) is a recent review. Wayne Hu's website contains a variety of useful introductory material targeted at different levels.
Why isn't this at WP:CITE? This might be listed as a practice, but not a guideline. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 17:28, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Huh? WP:CITE is also a guideline. Tijfo098 (talk) 21:09, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not enthusiastic about the word "often" in "often helpful to annotate". Sometimes it's self-evident what audience the further reading stuff is for, e.g. newspaper articles or scientific journal papers have an obvious audience. So, just having a large number of further reading entries doesn't seem sufficient to recommend annotations. Tijfo098 (talk) 21:15, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Rule prohibiting Reference cite in Further reading

Wikipedia talk:Further reading has an ongoing discussion on the Layout rule that says items listed in the references should not also be listed in the Further reading. Rjensen (talk) 07:35, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

My thought is that this is not really a layout issue. Accordingly, I propose that we take the rule out of Layout and let wp:Further reading decide how to resolve that debate. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 12:58, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

spacing for sections?

Should I hit a double return to make a blank line space, between a section header and the text that follows? How about "before a section"? TCO (talk) 13:57, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

  • WP:GTL#Headings and sections says that there should be a single blank line between sections; multiple blank lines in the edit window create too much white space in the article.
  • MOS:HEAD says that a blank line below the heading is optional; but do include one blank line above the heading, for readability in the edit window. (Only two or more blank lines above or below will add more white space in the public appearance of the page.) Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 20:38, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, so do it, but it does not change the appearance? Also, the blank space before the header, noone does that and I've had it changed when I put it in. (right?) TCO (talk) 21:18, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah. See Help:Wiki markup#Line breaks. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:10, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Elaborate please? I very rarely see people use those angle bracket style line breaks. What are you saying I should do? TCO (talk) 22:15, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean, "noone does that"? Everyone does that. This entire talk page does that. Finding a ==Section heading== without a blank line (whose purpose, by the way, is to make finding the section heads easier for editors) before it is quite unusual. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:13, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

The etymology post did not. And I expect if you sample article space, will find less. OK, I just went to the first article I linked to Egg (biology). The headers did not have that space. BTW, lately I see less than 50% having that space. But knowing that we are supposed to do it for editing view but that it does not affect reader view is helpful. TCO (talk) 00:07, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Egg (biology) most certainly does have a blank line before every ==Section heading==. Look—click here. Scroll down a bit (if necessary) until you find the bit that says ==Bird eggs==. See the blank line right above ==Bird eggs==? The little bit of vertical blank space immediately above it? That's what you're supposed to do: One blank line right above the ==Section heading==. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:21, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I mean if you open each section on it's own, you will not have a blank line as the very first line. TCO (talk) 00:29, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, when you click on the "[Edit] this section" link, the software only shows you the part of the page from the ==Section heading== down to the next ==Section heading==. If you open the whole page, you'll see the blank lines -- and this rule exists for the purpose of making multi-section and whole-page editing easier, so that's the only time that it's relevant. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:42, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Nother question (honest, just trying to get this straight). In the Egg (biology) article, there are no spaces after the section header (before the section text). Is that how you are supposed to do it? I'm just asking because I'm used to writing off-line (and then would put a blank line after the header before the text). TCO (talk) 00:32, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

MOS:HEAD says, in part, "A blank line below the heading is optional; ...". Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:31, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
provide some consistency — Unsigned by Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:31, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Principle of non-duplication, again

Rjensen (talk · contribs) would like to remove the principle of non-duplication from the WP:FURTHER section of this guideline. It was discussed previously at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (layout)/Archive 7#Significant_change_to_Further_reading, and s/he would like to discuss it again at another page. Please see the new discussion.

While I oppose listing a source once under ==References== and then again under ==Further reading==, my primary goal is to prevent direct conflicts between this guideline and the page under construction. Please join the new discussion to share your opinion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:16, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Can we solve your primary concern by removing the principle from this article? After all, it is a content - not layout - issue. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 20:29, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Please comment there, not here. Fragmented discussions could result in one group saying "yes, yes" while the other says "no, no". We need one consensus, not two potentially opposing decisions at two different pages. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:45, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
I am sorry I was not clearer. I agree with you that the discussion regarding non-duplication should take place at the Further reading talk page. The issue I am raising is whether this layout page should contain any comment regarding the content issue of non-duplication. My thought is that, since we now have wp:Further reading and the issue is being determined (or, as you would put it, re-determined) there, we can remove the guidance from this page.
With that in mind I suggest that this talk page is the place to decide whether wp:layout will contain any comment whatsoever about non-duplication. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 01:34, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Notes and References main article gone

The Notes and references section of Layout says:

But that link is no longer valid and Citing sources doesn't seem to talk about layout anymore. Is it there and I am missing it? If so, please update the link. If not, did this information go into some other article? If not, should we discuss it here? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 23:12, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Anybody out there? Here is where the text in question disappeared: Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 02:49, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
I suggest that you ask SlimVirgin directly why she made that choice. It might well be that she had no idea that we were relying on the link. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:48, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I just saw this. Is there something that needs to be restored? SlimVirgin talk|contribs 01:06, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
My thought is that it needs to be somewhere. Frankly, it looks more like a subject for Layout rather than Cite. But, to keep the articles from conflicting, Layout has historically deferred to Cite. If Cite is going to drop that content then I think we should put it in Layout. What do other editors think? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 12:45, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
It's still in CITE, it's just that that particular section was repetitive. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 22:49, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Can you give me a # link to the section within Cite that has the info? Maybe it will just be a simple matter of changing our "main article" link to that location. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 00:39, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

This problem still needs to be resolved. (Well, I've been busy.) So I'm making this entry to prevent automatic archiving. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 13:25, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I changed the project page to say
Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:16, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for that. However, I think the text at that link no longer contains any Layout information. So we probably should still think about talking about that here (now that CITE has abandoned the subject). Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 02:40, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Specialized layouts

WP:LAYOUT#Specialized layouts contains four items. Two of them make sense (talk pages and list articles) to me, and these two don't:

The content is basically 'use the normal layout, and we recommend putting the content in this order'. There are dozens of similar WikiProject guidelines. Why are we linking these two? Anyone mind if we remove them as largely irrelevant? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:12, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your work to simplify this page. However, I worry that we may be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. If I am, for example, writing a film article and come to this page for guidance it would be helpful for it to tell me about the film layout discussion. Is there some better way of having this page refer to the dozens of similar articles? A navbox? A separate list (linked to from Layout)? An "articles containing layout guidance" category? Some other way? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:24, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
I like SilkTork's substitution of the category. This should get people pointed in the right direction for dozens of subjects, without needlessly cluttering up this page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:00, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
I bow to Silk's research and withdraw my objections. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 23:24, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Current status of headings for footer navboxes

Is it correct to say that headings for footer navboxes are currently neither required nor prohibited by any previous wp:layout consensus? (Note: I am not asking whether Layout should require or prohibit such headings in the future, only whether it currently does.) Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 17:20, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

The lack of response makes me think that my understanding is correct: There is no rule requiring or prohibiting a navbox heading. In fact, when the idea of having a navbox heading was proposed to this list the suggestion was to put it out in the community and see what sort of response it received. wp:layout However, it is difficult to give this proposal a fair hearing when some editors mistakenly believe it is prohibited by Layout. For example: Accordingly, I propose to add the following text at wp:layout#Navigation_templates:

Title: There is no consensus requiring or prohibiting a title for navboxes.

Anyone object? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 01:02, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I am about to make this change. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:27, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Butwhatdoiknow, I know that you personally like these headings. But the fact is that the community hasn't adopted them. A plain description of the existing practice looks a lot more like "Two of Wikipedia's 50,000 editors like this section heading."
Despite your description of "no consensus", we actually do have a consensus: >99% of articles omit these section headings. Therefore, the existing consensus and a truthful description of current practice is to normally omit the section headings.
You don't happen to support the existing consensus, but the disagreement of one or two people doesn't invalidate the consensus.
I believe the consensus is strong enough to support a statement that directly and strongly discourages the use of such headings, but I'm willing to give your personal preference a little room by not mentioning the subject at all. However, I think that saying there's "no consensus" on this point is seriously misleading. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:54, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
I suggest that the two primary reasons "99% of articles omit these section headings" are: (1) the heading was not proposed at the time the practice of adding navboxes at the end of articles evolved and (2) now that they are proposed folks consider them "non-standard" and remove them. So, instead of consensus, we have resistance to change without much thought given to whether the headings are a good idea or not. While I do appreciate your willingness to give this idea a chance, for the reasons stated in my January 3 posting (above), saying nothing is not giving it a fair chance. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 19:59, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Trying to understand vague and irrelevant explanation

A footnote providing a suggested title for those who wish to add a title to the Navigation templates section has been reverted as "vague and irrelevant." The information in the footnote certainly seems relevant to the text, which states that there is no consensus requiring or prohibiting a title. And the footnote certainly seems clear, suggesting a title name for those who choose to provide a title. Or am I missing something? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:35, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Regarding "See also" section

In the "See also section" subsection of the "Standard appendices and footers" section, it says:

Links already integrated into the body of the text are generally not repeated in a "See also" section

Well, why not? Is there some justification for this? It seems that, especially in a rather lengthy article, the link may be rather buried in the text. From a purely human factors viewpoint, doesn't it make sense to have more than one entry point to germane data? Why deliberately restrict the entry points? Has this been thought through? Herostratus (talk) 04:28, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Keyword generally. Like you say, in a rather lengthy article it can make sense sometimes to highlight another that's already been inline-linked above, using a See also link. I suppose it's because those sections, given they comprise a list of page titles, are mostly composed of whitespace, so inevitably stick out. That makes editors disinclined to use them, particularly when the link has already been given and in some cases the linked-page's topic as it relates to the present one already sufficiently explored through prose. I use the See also template and its friends (e.g, {{Details}}) sometimes. They ensure a germane link isn't--as you say--buried in the text, while helping make sure the article falls short of including lengthy lists of the sort we discourage through pages like wp:embed. I imagine it's a corollary of the wp:overlinking guideline, which discusses linking subsequent occurrences a little further down, as well. Evaluating on a case by case basis along with employing other solutions like those templates when it seems justified is an approach that I feel works well. –Whitehorse1 05:01, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
It seems pov to me, to "point out" to ignorant, sloppy readers that they should "also" see something that they decided to skip linking to in the text. In other words, this is WP:UNDUE weight to the linked article that I have decided to "push" (and, sorry, but mostly these are articles with an axe to grind, either tourism or favorite author or something). The problem about leaving everything up to the editors, is when we get a nut, which always happens, eventually, it is hard to remove his stuff without some clear rule. And no, by the time the robust article gets this "information" {strangely overlooked by the original, highly knowledgeable authors who have since moved on), there are few editors watching the page. Just me and this other guy, for example. It is usually mano to mano. With a crisp, lucid, non-vague "rule", I can handle these guys. With sloppy, vague rules, I cannot, forced to seek a Rfc over what is really trivia, and possibly mediation, over essentially a pov addition. Spare us, please! --Student7 (talkcontribs) 14:16, 24 December 2010
The reader has an option to search on wiki (or a search engine) right in his computer that he is using. If he already ignores a link in the body text, let's not repeat it at the bottom. Instead let's get more solid content into the gappy articles that abound. A firm rule to cut duplication, will do more good (even ergonimically, as we cut spinach) than harm. --TCO (talkcontribs) 14:36, 24 December 2010
The current text says that links are "generally not repeated" (emphasis added). I, for one, would like to leave in this flexibility as promoting the "good" with less chance of "harm" than a hard and fast rule. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 13:45, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
In most cases a navbox is a better option than repeating the links in the See also section. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 13:45, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Appears to be case sensitive - it would be useful to mention that to reduce the number of red links. Scottonsocks (talk) 00:03, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Are you thinking of this edit? That's not a characteristic of the "See also" section, but normal behaviour for any wikilink, see here: "The link target is case-sensitive except for the first character (so atom links to Atom, but ATom does not)". --Redrose64 (talk) 12:36, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Seeking feedback: subject bar template

I have created a new template that eliminates the need to use the floating portal, book, and sister project boxes within articles. Called the {{Subject bar}}, it integrates all 3 and has a fairly decent amount of flexibility. At present, it can show up to 10 portals, 10 books, and all 8 sister projects. It can easily be expanded to cover more, if desired. Demos can be viewed on the documentation page, but here's a quick peek:

I have a live demo up on the Lemur article. Be sure to compare before and after.

For starters, I'm looking for feedback, positive or negative. Please share your comments. If the demo looks wrong, someone may be mucking around with it. If that's the case, the working code (as of the time of posting) can be found here. It uses a small sub-template called {{Subject bar/item}} (original), and points to the subpages of {{Portal}} in order obtain the names of the portal icons. – VisionHolder « talk » 09:11, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

A nice idea. Would be better if the three rows were the same height. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:12, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
At home on Firefox, the rows are almost identical in height, as long as there are not too many items to cause wrapping. However, I'm noticing here at work on IE6 (don't laugh) that there's an extra space at the bottom of the book row, the top and bottom of the portal row, and at the top of the interWiki row. If someone spots the problem, they're welcome to make the fix. – VisionHolder « talk » 17:37, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
We have generally been separating internal content (books and portals, normally under ==See also== rather than the top of the article) from external content (sister projects).
How do you think it should interact with the common end-of-article navigation templates? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:28, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean by "interact", but if we need, I can create separate templates for books/portals and interWikis. However, relatively few articles use "See also", which I'm sure restricts the use of portal and book boxes, which add a lot of whitespace or mess up formating. I guess I have no problem standardizing on using "See also" and "External links" sections for this stuff as long as inline templates are used only so that they are added to a list. But I'm eager to hear other opinions on this. So far, though, most of the replies I got at WP:Village pump (proposals) said the bar approach was better than the floating boxes. – VisionHolder « talk » 19:12, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
good idea--but please don't call them "books" -- call them "collections of Wiki articles" (books have editors, publishers, dealers, salesmen and a life of their own). Rjensen (talk) 18:05, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. The naming of "books" comes from Wikipedia:Books and is based off of the template: {{Wikipedia-Books}}. I'm just following their naming convention. – VisionHolder « talk » 18:28, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
The relevant namespace is "Book:"; and you may also notice in your left-side menu, under "print/export", the entry "Create a book". It's the same thing. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:29, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

"See also": including a link to a specific section of an article?

Should there be any particular guidance here about linking to a section?

My specific example: in the article Time formatting and storage bugs, I want to add a "See also" link to material about issues with Daylight Savings Time. Just including

isn't very specific. Linking instead to

focuses to the proper part of the article, but it needlessly (IMO) exposes the mechanics of section links to the reader. So I'm thinking

might be a little more reader-friendly, or even

Any thoughts, both on what to do here, and whether there should be guidance in WP:SEEALSO? --NapoliRoma (talk) 19:33, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there is any particular guidance needed. any of the variants work in doubt.--Kmhkmh (talk) 08:06, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
I would avoid the second. We do that on dab pages to be specific and educate users on navigation. In this case pipe text should improve the appearance. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
Alternatively, you can create a redirect to the section and link to that. I've done it sometimes, especially when an apt topic name exists. Tag the redirect with with {{R to section}}. Tijfo098 (talk) 21:18, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Official sites in external links

I've added a sentence to the External links section, as discussed above. The article subject's official site, if any, should always be listed under External links, per WP:ELYES and WP:ELOFFICIAL, regardless of whether it has been cited or not. As written, our text instructed editors not to list the official site if it has previously been used to source article content. Feel free to tweak the wording. --JN466 02:31, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I said feel free to tweak, but this doesn't work for me. As it stands, it is not clear to a novice editor whether they should list the subject's site under External links, if it's been cited as a reference; the text rather seems to imply they shouldn't. --JN466 05:34, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
ELNEVER trumps everything, and if your subject's official site is on the blacklist, then you cannot list it, full stop. So "always" is not precisely the correct word here.
Some editors decide that a link in an infobox is sufficient, especially if this permits them to omit the ==External links== section altogether.
If editors need to know whether this is okay, then they can go read ELYES, which is pretty clear. IMO we don't need to duplicate that much of the External links guideline here.
For most articles, there simply is no official link. So we're talking about duplicating part of another guideline to call out a specific instance that doesn't apply to the majority of articles and whose absence here isn't (as far as I can tell) tripping up anyone. It consequently seems WP:CREEPy to me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:04, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
There may be other considerations and criteria such as the ones you mention that impinge on whether the subject's official site should be listed under External links, but the official site having been cited for a statement in the article is not one of them. Whether it's been cited or not, it's the first link in any External links section, and should be, as the reader will miss it if it's hidden among 50 references. You know that and I know that, but we are not writing for you and me, we are writing for the novice user. What we have is apt to confuse them. --JN466 06:53, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
We could add an explanatory footnote (I attempted to streamline the text; perhaps it's better now), but how often does this really come up? Most official websites aren't really useful as references. The information is usually on some subpage, e.g.,, not at itself. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:39, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

What about duplication with the infobox?

For small articles like academic journal stubs, I think it looks rather silly to have both. Tijfo098 (talk) 20:18, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved from ""
This content was retrieved from Wikipedia :
This page is based on the copyrighted Wikipedia article "Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Layout/Archive 7"; it is used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA). You may redistribute it, verbatim or modified, providing that you comply with the terms of the CC-BY-SA