This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Manual of Style/Embedded lists redirect. |
|
Archives: 1, 2 |
This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
Wikipedia:Collapsible tables, MOS:COLLAPSE and Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(tables)#Collapsible_tables. When should lists be collapsed? SilkTork * YES! 13:01, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Editors may be interested in this RFC, along with the discussion of its implementation:
Should all subsidiary pages of the Manual of Style be made subpages of WP:MOS?
It's big; and it promises huge improvements. Great if everyone can be involved. Noetica Tea? 00:33, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Embedded_lists#.22Children.22 seems to be giving the ok for boldface to be used in prose. New York City and the three building titles.
Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(text_formatting)#Boldface does not say this is ok, as well as the article the example is taken from, Skyscraper#History_of_tallest_skyscrapers, currently having New York City without boldface.
It seems to me that the prose and list examples merely repeat the text and are boldened in both, something that I am sure I would have removed boldening from if I had known it still was there, as I always took it to simply be for emphasis in the lists MoS so that people could see the differences.
In the discussions that took place in 2006 there seem to only be two people discussing, one says "I did not say that it is OK to bold the items in the list because we have other guidelines that say we only bold the name of the article itself", yet the change was put through with boldface, against MoS [1].
As it stands now there is nothing in MoS to say that boldface can be used in this manner. I am going to edit out the boldface as it is against MoS#boldface and appears to be a relic of changes made in 2006. If MoS is changed to include embedded lists, then fine. As it stands now it does not support this boldface usage. Chaosdruid ( talk) 15:01, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
I think the last sentence in the introduction, "Too much statistical data is against policy", would be better expressed/more grammatically correct as "Having too much statistical data is against policy" or some variation. I didn't want to just suddenly change an MoS page without asking/telling anyone, so... what does anyone else think? — Ugncreative Usergname ( talk) 01:36, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lists#Selection criteria. -- Marc Kupper| talk 20:00, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Discussion at: RfC: When is the presentation of statistics, such as with Weather box and Climate chart, excessive?. This concerns use of {{ Weather box}} and {{ Climate chart}} in most settlement articles, down to small town and village level. SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:09, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
The lead currently defines embedded lists as:
With regard to the guideline that "the 'See also' section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes", let me point to this discussion: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Outlines#outline sections (not articles). Thanks. Fgnievinski ( talk) 04:17, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Currently the Bulleted and numbered lists section includes a list:
Since these are sentence fragments, should the punctuation and linkers be removed for brevity (and to set an example)?
Note that grammar is not my specialty... T. Shafee (Evo&Evo) ( talk) 09:45, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
The section is contradictory and unhelpful. It says:
2001:8A0:4304:8101:E981:3FC7:F236:8782 ( talk) 12:28, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
As the issue may concern the implementation of MOS:EMBED, editors at this talk page are requested to please join us at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Layout#"See also" content for a discussion concerning whether it is acceptable practice to link to Wikipedia templates in the " See also" section. Thanks in advance. - Thibbs ( talk) 15:07, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
If you look at the article for The Crucible, there is a giant description list with links to the main articles for the character being described. I know, generally, headers should not contain links. Are these considered headers as far as this rule goes? - Dunc0029 ( talk) 22:37, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
"See also" lists and "Related topics" lists are valuable navigational tools that assist users in finding related Wikipedia articles. When deciding what articles and lists of articles to append to any given entry, it is useful to try to put yourself inside the mind of readers: Ask yourself where would a reader likely want to go after reading the article. Ideally, links in these sections should have been featured in the article. Typically this will include three types of links:
Links to related topics – topics similar to that discussed in the article. Higher order (i.e. more general) articles and lists – this might include lists of people, list of countries, etc. For example, list of Indian language poets should link to both list of Indians and list of poets. Lower order (i.e. more specific) articles and lists – for example, the Business page navigational list contains links to small business, list of accounting topics, etc.
There is some controversy over how many links to articles and links to lists that should be put in any article. Some people separate the "links to articles" (put in the "See also" section) from the "links to lists" (put in the "Related topics" section), but this is not necessary unless there are too many links for one section alone. Some feel the optimum number of links to lists that should be included at the end of any given article is one or two (or fewer). Others feel that a more comprehensive set of lists would be useful. In general, we should use the same criteria when deciding what list to include as we use to decide what articles to include in the See also section. We have to try to put ourselves in the readers' frame of mind and ask "Where will I likely want to go after reading this article?". As a general rule, the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes.
There seems to be a contradiction under the See also section. Perhaps I'm reading it wrong, but should links in the see also section be in the article or not be in the article (see below for copy paste of current section with emphasis added in red). Thanks Dig Deeper ( talk) 21:59, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
I see lots of editorialization and clichés. If I could edit that fragment of text, this is what I'd turn it into (no, I'm not removing anything outside the passage and I'm not making it into serifs):
The Beaux-Arts movement was represented by architects Stanford White and Carrère and Hastings. citation needed The Flatiron Building (1902), where Fifth Avenue crosses Broadway at Madison Square; Cass Gilbert's Woolworth Building (1913), a Cathedral of Commerce citation needed; the Chrysler Building (1929), and the Empire State Building (1931) were built in New York City. Architects Raymond Hood and Lever House built clusters of skyscrapers such as the World Trade Center towers (1973) after World War II.
If you think it was right to use peacock words like striking or editorialization such as most notably. See WP:W2W, WP:PUFFERY or WP:EDITORIAL to see why you are wrong.
If you think that alters any meanings or any other things that you think make my thing wrong, provide detailed explanation on how it is all wrong.
Is it wrong to add [citation needed] or cite sources in such examples? Wikipedia isn't a soapbox and should be written from an encyclopedic neutral perspective.
It shouldn't be written like the script for a movie about the history of architecture in the United States in a positive light. It's an encyclopedia, not a tabloid editorial. Write about stuff in a neutral light.
-- Turkeybutt ( talk) 23:46, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm a little confused about the see also section. I often put links to topics that will probably get integrated into the article later, and articles that seem similar, although that always feels like WP:OR. On the other hand, should the see also list be intentionally crafted to include articles specifically relevant to the user, even if their topics have been mentioned already in the article? I see that "As a general rule, the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body", but is it appropriate to just remove the links from the article body? My question is prompted by this edit by Wojsław Brożyna. Daask ( talk) 01:21, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Of course it's better to have the link in the proper text, but it still is - in the second paragraph of " History" section. I only erased duplicated link from text. Daask, in my opinion is inappropriate to remove links from text for just leaving them in "See also" :) -- Wojsław Brożyna ( talk) 15:04, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Please see: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lists#Overly long list items
Gist: Add brief advice about what to do about excessively large items in lists, to either WP:Manual of Style/Lists or WP:Summary style. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:28, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Please see: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography#Side matter: commas between post-nominal abbreviations – Gist: Is "OFM Cap FSA Scot FRHistS" five post-nominals, or three? (Hint: it's three.) These are forms of embedded (horizontal, inline) lists, so watchers of this page may care about the discussion. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 13:35, 23 December 2018 (UTC)