Wikipedia talk:Guide to layout

From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Clarification requested[change source]

Can someone tell me whether the intention is that "Optional sections" should be in the sequence that they are listed here? I was trying to find out whether "Related pages" should be moved above "References" here in Simple, found this page through wikidata after going to EN wikipedia's redirect from WP:ORDER, and thought it could be helpful to others to put such a redirect here. Thoughts anyone (the page I was wondering whether to change is Ecosystem)? Sminthopsis84 (talk) 15:07, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Related pages" should be above "References". When in doubt, copy established usage. Macdonald-ross (talk) 15:11, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Following established usage would only be appropriate if I were making a new page. In this case the change could have been an unnecessary edit if, in fact, the attitude at Simple is that the sequence of the sections is unimportant. I'll clarify this page for dummies such as myself to use. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 15:29, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Other optional section headings[change source]

In the subsection for Optional sections, what are the Simple English WP headings for the following?

  • In popular culture
  • Legacy (in biographies of the deceased)
  • Notable people (born or living in a geographic location)

I've seen alternate wordings for these in the EN WP (e.g. "In the media", "Famous residents"), but not in the MoS Guide to Layout. I did see possible guidelines in en:Category:WikiProject style advice, but the three I'm asking are quite general. I would suppose they go above the existing "Optional" sections. -- Deborahjay (talk) 14:51, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would probably use those names. There really isn't much that can be simplified in them. That being said I am not sure we would include them a page like this here. We tend to have our "documentation" be simple as well as the language. So they might be a bit more detail than needed. -DJSasso (talk) 11:43, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would say 'legacy' as used so often is a cant term for the correct and simple 'influence'. The correct use of 'legacy' would be when part of a person's estate is passed down after the person's death. An extension might be 'something handed down by a predecessor'. But in actuality its use in popular culture usually means nothing more than 'influence'.
I would use the other two terms as they are. I think readers will understand 'popular culture' correctly, and we have our own guidance as to what 'notable' means. Macdonald-ross (talk) 19:43, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Article layout proposal and discussion[change source]

Currently we have [[Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout]]. However, I find it is missing sections, some of which we should have and some that are optional. I came up with this after researching en and simple guidelines.

Purpose: This will help standardize articles and ensure that categories are correct, nav bars are correct (which adds to linking to other sites to keep readers interested, and possibly, getting involved in Wikipedia. Having standardized headings and sections completed also looks neater and will make it easier for readers/editors to follow along since they will all have the same layout so if they are looking for one simple thing like a bird, having the taxon bar at the bottom links to everything about that species and more. Putting the stub at the very bottom is the easiest one to justify because if it gets expanded to which I believe is 1,500 words then we know to go right to the bottom and delete the tag and we won't have to search for the coding.

  • Some notes:
  1. This would be a guideline, not a policy. The reason I say that is in the next bullet
  2. Not all articles will have the information on the sheet. However, some will be mandatory and must be placed in the order on the guideline document (the ones at the bottom).
  3. Please feel free to nominate changes in the orders as well and we can discuss that as well. I think what is set up is ok, but we can improve on it. This conversation is what is prompting me to bring this up again. Last time I brought this up, it went way off the rails and fell into a canyon 90,000 feet below with no survivors. That conversation, in full transparency to the community, can be found here.

Please start the discussion below. I am looking for community consensus to implement these into our guidelines. I look forward to hearing from everyone.

If you wanted to change the layout of a section please only state the section and in what order, as there is no need to copy/paste everything over and over again. I can update that on the page in my userspace.

My version of the layout in short if you do not want to click on the guideline for WP, is as follows:

  • Before the article content
  1. Quick deletion or Requests for Deletion template (only if appropriate)
  2. Infoboxes
  3. Images
  4. Navigation header templates (sidebar templates)
  • Article content
  1. Lead section (also called the introduction)
  2. Table of contents
  3. Body
  4. Works or publications (for biographies only)
  5. See also
  6. Notes and references (this can be two sections in some citation systems)
  7. Further reading
  8. Other websites - Do not use links to other Wikipedias as they are not reliable and some don’t render on different computers
  • The following would be mandatory and placed in the exact order as it is listed here
  • End matter
  1. Commons, Wikispecies and other sister project links
  2. Other navigation footer templates (navboxes)
  3. Taxonbar - Template (by policy, this is where this is supposed to be placed)
  4. Authority control templates
  5. Geographical coordinates (if not in Infobox) or coord missing (will be a hidden section in categories)
  6. Defaultsort
  7. Categories
  8. Stub templates

Thanks, PDLTalk to me!OMG, What have I done? 00:00, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[change source]

  •  Comment: Please go through this and 1) remove things we don't do/have here and 2) change the things that are different here. I know you welcomed other people to do that, but if you're going to propose this, I think you yourself should make the proposal fit what is done here. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:25, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, this discussion might be better at Wikipedia talk:Guide to layout. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:25, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Auntof6 I got you on both comments. For point one, I put that above already so it is written on how I would like to see it laid out which follows pretty close to enWP and ours. For point 2 - I will move the discussion over to their and post a link on here to the discussion. Thanks! PDLTalk to me!OMG, What have I done? 00:28, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My point was that you have listed some things here that we don't use at all, anywhere. It would help if you could remove those so that people don't get confused. In addition, some of the things you list are used here under different names; it would help if you listed them under the names that we use here. -- Auntof6 (talk) 02:32, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Auntof6 I think I got it right. I updated the original above. Did I miss anything? I know you know these better than me so I’m going off of what I typically see and the earlier version is what gets brought over which is why I had included them, but they are gone now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PotsdamLamb (talkcontribs) 07:34, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: The latest update can be seen here: User:PotsdamLamb/List_of_Article_Layout last updated 6/24/22 at 20:54 UTC PDLTalk to me!OMG, What have I done? 20:55, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]