Wikipedia talk:Guide to layout/Archive 3

Should not this page follow the guidelines which this page explains?

The "Notes" subsection under "Standard appendices and descriptions" doesn't really say what the "Notes" section should contain, but the implication is pretty clear. The current "Notes" section of this article, contrary to the subsection describing "Notes" sections, does not contain footnotes which comment on, or which cite a reference for, a part of the main text. -- Boracay Bill 01:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Uh, yes it does, the little bit after the number 1. You will see there is a superscripted [1] in the description which generates the note in the article Notes section. IPSOS (talk) 02:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Page protection

I've protected because of the reverting. Anyone wanting to change this guideline should first make sure his proposals are consistent with related policies and guidelines (and actual practice), and should then propose them on talk, rather than inserting them first and reverting over objections. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I did make sure they were consistent with related policies and guidelines and actual practice, and the people reverting back to the old version were the ones reverting over objections. And that comment is especially bizarre coming from you, as the very person who constantly made edits to WP:EL against clear consensus without any discussion and ignoring clearly demonstrated policies and practices. I think you're just back to using your protection ability to try to force your way, as you did when you protected an attack page another editor made against me with false accusations and which the consensus of admins later removed over your objections. You make it very difficult for anyone to assume good faith about your actions. DreamGuy 03:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

This article needs to be unlocked already...

...so we can fix the errors in the heading section. See also always comes after Notes and References and before External links. DreamGuy 02:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

The order of section headings was established here many times (read up) as well as at WP:MSH, in archives. (Noting that you're also changing it at WP:MSH.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

History of the position of See also

For the benefit of DreamGuy:

• 02:25, 2 January 2003: first introduction of "Related Topics", before "References"
• 02:51, 26 June 2005: "Related topics" is changed to "See also". It is between "Quotations" and "References"
• 19:45, 6 April 2007: Reinyday moves "See also" between "Further reading" and "External links" with the deceptive edit comment "see talk". There is no discussion relating to the change on the talk page.
• 00:08, 7 April 2007: I notice the non-consensus change and fix it (partially). I finish fixing it a few hours later when I notice that I hadn't reverted the whole change.
• 21:33, 17 July 2007: DreamGuy makes the same change, then subsequently edit wars over it, falsely claiming it has always been this way.

In actuality, "See also" has been before "References" since it's first introduction. "Notes" was introduced in between the two, and since that time, "See also" has always been before "Notes" except for one period of less than 24 hours over the course of 4.5 years that the "See also" section (or its equivalent "Related topics") has existed. IPSOS (talk) 15:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

And it makes sense, because See also is wikified content; we prefer to direct readers to Wiki content before off-Wiki content. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. Now I think if DreamGuy could only acknowledge his mistake, this page could be unprotected. IPSOS (talk) 15:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

It would seem that DreamGuy is editing against the consensus here. Why doesn't he accept the proper order of the sections? --Editmaniac 07:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps someone else could have a word with him? He's "banned" me from his talk page for having brought this up. Apparently it makes me part of a conspiracy of editors who he claims harass him. IPSOS (talk) 13:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I left him a message pointing him to this section. Hopefully he'll take a look at the stuff here. Editmaniac 19:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, my first message to him was erased. Not sure if it was intentional, so I left him another just in case. I'm not optimistic about him bothering to take the section order history into consideration, though. Editmaniac 06:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

can anyone fix this page? Najib Tun Razak

the white space at the top looks funny. Bigglove 23:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Diagram

Some people learn more efficently with visual aids, to help them out I've created a sample diagram of an article and a stub. These are rough drafts, so please correct me where I have erred on layout. Issues like the disappearing vertical line on the left will be corrected too of course, I just don't want to put too much effort into this if people think it's a bad idea. Anynobody 05:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

At the bottom "infobox" needs to be replaced with "navigational template". Circeus 16:38, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, I fixed it. Anynobody 01:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Non-English Wikipedia articles in See also section?

Are non-English Wikipedia articles allowed in the See also sections of English articles? --Silver Edge 02:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a policy expert, but I think the answer is no. Each Wikipedia is separate, so an article on another Wikipedia (one of the other languages) is an external link. --Gronky 20:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

See also: Never linked in article?

GracenotesSchmuckyTheCat has changed the wording of the See also section, thereby completely changing its meaning diff. It said "...should ideally not repeat links already present in the article", now it reads "...should not repeat links already present in the article". I could not find any discussion preceeding this change and I strongly disagree with the current version. I would like to revert this change. Cacycle 21:11, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I think your diff is broken. I made that change. What do you strongly disagree with? See also sections shouldn't be link farms. SchmuckyTheCat

The Guide to layout states:

"The "See also" section provides an additional list of internal links to other articles in Wikipedia that are related to this one as a navigational aid."

The "See also" section is a highly important and fundamental navigation aid to closely related articles. Removing important links only because the same link is already hidden somewhere in the article (maybe even under a different displayed link text) is counterproductive and clearly against established usage.

Of course, we have to avoid the repetition of every link from the article (your "link farms"), but you should leave it to the discretion of the article editors to decide which links are important enough to be listed under "See also". This practice is perfectly in accord with the Guide to layout - at least it was until you sneaked in your change without an adequate summary and without any previous discussion.

I think this topic is very similar to the Manual of Style linking guidelines which actually suggest to link to the same article in different paragraphs if it helps the reader. Cacycle 04:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe they are fundamental navigation aids. I put in what is already in practice, that editors regularly cull these out. If a topic is important enough to be mentioned, it can be mentioned in the text.

It's a guideline and best practice, not a policy. Articles have see also sections because nobody has taken the time to link the topics to well-written text in the article. It's a goal many articles never reach, but a perfect article won't have a see also section and a middling article will. SchmuckyTheCat

Everything on Wikipedia, and especially in the Manual of Style should be taken with a grain of salt. "Ideally" always worked just fine (I was the one who added the statement to begin with) and attempting to enforce a hard and fast rule will only cause teeth gnashing. I'll revert now at least until a consensus emerges here to the opposite. The point of bolding was that new links should be integrated in the articles, and not dumped in "See also". Circeus 00:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Circeus. Cacycle 01:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

"See also" proposal

In order to avoid future confusions over the function and usage of the "See also" section, I propose the following clarified text for Guide to layout "See also" section. Please comment and suggest improvements, I have numbered the sentences for an easier discussion:

(1) The "See also" section is a navigational aid that points the reader to closely related articles in Wikipedia. (2) The section is a bulleted list of internal links that should be followed by a short explanation or comment.

(3) The "See also" section should not be an indiscriminate repetition of the links from the article. (4) The links should not point to pages that do not exist and that are not likely to be created soon. (5) This section is the most appropriate place to link a Wikipedia Portal with the {{portal}} template.

(6) Sometimes, missing aspects of an article are added as a "See also" link as a quick fix - these entries should be expanded into article text.

(7) The "See also" section was previously also called "Related topics".

Cacycle 01:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks okay to me. Maybe consider dropping or changing "closely" (maybe "closely, but not directly"?). Also similar, but not necessarily "related" topics are often founds (e.g. Hamlet chicken processing plant fire). The vast majority of "closely" related topics will be linked in the body. Circeus 02:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any need to change what's there now, but I particularly object to No. 2 (followed by a short explanation or comment). We certainly don't need to start loading up the See also section with commentary, as those descriptions could become a source of problems. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Sandy, have you looked at the current section? It says (and has for a while) "Also provide a brief explanatory sentence when the relevance of the added links is not immediately apparent". Circeus 04:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's a bit different than saying "should be followed". I might take the argument further and say if the relevance isn't immediately apparent, perhaps the article doesn't belong as a See also link, but I'd have to come up with an example. Since I almost never see an explanatory sentence, it's hard to find an example. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Current best practice not reflected: Bibliography or Further reading

These sections are often brought in after the Reference section, because the references are often abbreviated and refer to works listed in Bibliography/Further reading. This is entirely logical, useful, and should be reflected in this document. 82.71.48.158 23:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I've been noticing quite a few articles recently which place a ref/cites in a section headed Notes, sometimes along with with mixed-in footnotes not linked to cited sources, and which place materiel which I would expect to see in Bibliography or Further reading sections (i.e., a list of external sources, which individually might or might not be cited by one or more Notes section items) into a section named References. -- Boracay Bill 00:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)