Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Embedded lists

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Manual of Style/Embedded lists redirect.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1, 2

Shortcut

WT:MOSEMBED

Manual of Style

	This redirect falls within the scope of the Wikipedia:Manual of Style, a collaborative effort focused on enhancing clarity, consistency, and cohesiveness across the Manual of Style (MoS) guidelines by addressing inconsistencies, refining language, and integrating guidance effectively.Manual of StyleWikipedia:WikiProject Manual of StyleTemplate:WikiProject Manual of StyleManual of Style articles
	This redirect falls under the contentious topics procedure and is given additional attention, as it closely associated to the English Wikipedia Manual of Style, and the article titles policy. Both areas are subjects of debate. Contributors are urged to review the awareness criteria carefully and exercise caution when editing.
	For information on Wikipedia's approach to the establishment of new policies and guidelines, refer to WP:PROPOSAL. Additionally, guidance on how to contribute to the development and revision of Wikipedia policies of Wikipedia's policy and guideline documents is available, offering valuable insights and recommendations.

Lists

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles

Collapsible tables and lists

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)[reply]

RFC: restructuring of the Manual of Style

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)[reply]

Boldface against MoS#boldface

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)[reply]

That might have been a bit too soon: the top of WP:EMBED says "Please ensure that any edits to this page reflect consensus." MOS:BOLD#Boldface is actually ambiguous on this. I have posted on its talk page to point out the ambiguity and ask for its resolution. --Stfg (talk) 11:24, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Last sentence in intro

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)[reply]

Good point. Adjusted. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:24, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Selection criteria

Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lists#Selection criteria. --Marc Kupper|talk 20:00, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on when embedded statistic lists may be excessive

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)[reply]

Definition of an embedded list

The lead currently defines embedded lists as:

"Embedded lists are lists of links, data or information that are either included in the text of an article or appended to the end of an article."

My understanding is that there are only two basic types of lists: stand-alone and embedded. That current definition of an embedded list doesn't include a list that's part of a prose article yet not part of the actual text of the article, e.g., a list in an image, a caption, an infobox, a navbox, etc. I think the first sentence should read something like:

"Embedded lists are lists of links, data or information that appear anywhere within an article that is primarily prose, i.e., embedded lists are any lists that are not stand-alone lists." Sparkie82 (t•c) 00:51, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the line between embedded and stand alone is purposely murky. I've seen the 50/50 or 40/60 split enough to know that what is a stand alone list and what is a prose article isn't always clear. But with that, I don't see any objection to Sparkie's wording. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 05:33, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Contradictory statements in "Related topics (navigational lists)"

The section is contradictory and unhelpful. It says:

"See also" lists and "Related topics" lists are valuable navigational tools (...) links in these sections should have been featured in the article. (...) As a general rule, the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes.

2001:8A0:4304:8101:E981:3FC7:F236:8782 (talk) 12:28, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The rule reads: "As a general rule, the 'See also' section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body" Am I really expected to read the entire text of the article, multiple times to look for that thing that is related to the other thing I am reading about. It makes no sense to remove them because we have this hard rule. Look here at this article where the three most common related topics are removed based on this rule. Now I have to read the article multiple times looking for the name of the related subject. I can see not repeating things if the article is a single paragraph. Just as the lede repeats the main text, the "see also" should repeat certain related subjects that are present in the main text. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:57, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed this. I guess I'm not the only one who saw this... Dig Deeper (talk) 22:00, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"See also" content

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)[reply]

Links within definition lists?

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)[reply]

Contradiction under the See also section

"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). ThanksDig Deeper (talk) 21:59, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, these are not contradictory with a particular reading of the word "should" in the first paragraph above. They '"should have been" provided', 'but were not' is the correct implication of that sentence. Your reading of that paragraph would stem from the use of the word "are" or similar. I'm not sure if a rewriting is necessary, but it might be useful to clarify the point. --Izno (talk) 12:34, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's complicated. The best practice works something like this:

If it's a short article, and the link is in the article, then please don't duplicate the link.
If it's a long article, and the link is way up towards the top, and the link is really important (i.e., a lot of people will want to find that link), then consider adding it.
If the link is highly relevant, but not present in the article, then please consider adding it regardless of whether it's in a navbox.

An uncomfortable fact for editors who love navboxes: In addition to half of our readers being unable to see them at all, we have no evidence that non-editors use them even when they are visible. General user-interface theory suggests that readers are unlikely to find links when the navbox is large, or when it is collapsed. (Note that the problems of a large navbox applies to a large ==See also== section, too: It's fine to have, say, the three most relevant links, but having 30 is useless.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:22, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

About the prose example:

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)[reply]

I don't think that using Wikipedia:Brilliant Prose is antithetical to neutrality.

This sample feels like a lead, and it would not be normal to add citations to it (nor would it be relevant to add dummy refs to an example). Additionally, if those alleged peacock words are what the sources are saying, then using those words, or identifying a particular work as the work that is "most notable", is exactly what we mean by "neutrality". WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:27, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Crafting the "See also" section

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)[reply]

That edit is a bit boggling. It is always better to have the link in the text proper. --Izno (talk) 04:10, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@Wojsław Brożyna: Oh, I think I misunderstood your intention and it would have been better to address this on your talk page. I didn't realize there was still a link elsewhere in the content of the article. Then shouldn't Post-left anarchism be removed from the see also list per the guideline quoted above? Daask (talk) 15:13, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it should be removed from see also if it is already in the page elsewhere. --Izno (talk) 16:19, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal on overly long entries in lists

FYI

– Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

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)[reply]

Commas and post-nominal abbreviations

FYI