Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Layout#Semi-protected edit request on 7 January 2021

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Manual of Style/Layout page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Shortcut WT:MOSLAYOUTWT:MOSLAYOUT

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15Auto-archiving period: 5 months

Format of appendices Before proposing a change to the standard appendices, please study Wikipedia:Perennial proposals § Changes to standard appendices.

This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Manual of Style This page 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 This page 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.

I work a lot with tennis articles and many have the {{main}} template placed above the lead. Lots and lots of them. Example 2024 ATP Finals – Singles. I was shown awhile ago that template "main" is never to be placed in the lead and it says so right in the template documentation. Several of us have been changing "main" to the template "further" to fix this disparity. Today I look at the template "see also" and it also says not to be used in the lead, only at the top of article sections. That got me to thinking why is the "further" template not clear on this placement? It says top of sections but says nothing about the article lead. Is this a mistake of not being clearer? I ask because Tennis Project is slowly fixing the "main" template to "further" and I don't want to find out later that no template at all should be in the lead. Should we be removing {{main}} completely, changing it to {{further}} or something else? And should the {{further}} template be made more clear as to its proper placement? Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:03, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

{{Broader}}? Moxy🍁 02:23, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

{{Broader}} is also just meant for sections, I'd seems. I'd rather avoid any such template in the lead but instead integrate the information into the running text: During the 2024 ATP Finals, Jannik Sinner defeated Taylor Fritz ... Gawaon (talk) 04:14, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Broader" has the same issue as "further" does. It says section and it talks about being used as a replacement for "main" and "see also" which are already listed as not being suited for the lead. I think what we need is something in the documentation of "further" and "broader" that says this can be used in the lead, or this should not be used in the lead. So editors will know. I'm not sure where I stand which is why I brought it here to discuss. We know "main" and "see also" do not get used in the lead. What do we do with "further" and now "broader?" Allow it, not allow it, encourage it's use or disuse? Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:09, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is this mostly for tennis articles, or is there similar use elsewhere? Putting on my reader's cap, at a glance it looks like the disambiguation hatnotes I through banner blindness don't read unless and until I'm somehow not on the page I want. I would be more likely to look for it in the lead, as mentioned above, or in the template where it seems to already be located. CMD (talk) 08:14, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure of all the articles these items are used in. It's easy to see what links to {{main}} or {{further}} but not easy that I know of to search for those links only in the lead. You will see it also at the Olympics such as Badminton at the 2020 Summer Olympics – Women's singles or Table tennis at the 2008 Summer Olympics – Men's singles They have certainly proliferated in tennis articles for some reason. And in fixing the known "main" issue in the lead I don't want to compound the problem by changing "main" to "further". Certainly we can get rid of all those templates in the lead but I wasn't sure if that was correct either. I looked for guidance in the templates themselves and only got it with "main" and "see also". I thought my betters here could shed some light. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've used {{Broader}} for this purpose, for example Multicast address. The hatnote it creates there says "For broader coverage of this topic, see Multicast." so it looks appropriate. I guess hadn't looked carefully at the documentation because, you're right, it only talks about use in sections there. I would support updating the documentation to describe its use to create a hatnote at the top of the article. ~Kvng (talk) 16:45, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd forgotten about "Broader" but that fits in the same pattern. Should it be used in the lead or only in sections of prose? And I'm sure if we allow it in the lead, some will be scratching their heads for a good reason why we treat "Main" and "See Also" differently. I think it should be clear in all these templates on where they can be used. Should we put the same updated documentation in all these templates that the lead is perfectly acceptable, other than "main" and "see also"? Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:18, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since the only response on what to do didn't have a problem using "broader" and "further" at the tops of articles, I will make it clear in the templates that they can be used there. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:35, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Per these discussions and also WP:RELATED. Only the templates "see also" and "Main" cannot be used above the lead, and I fixed their documentation. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:50, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, to the extent concerns are raised about using these sorts of hatnotes in the lead or other other awkward places, you can simply use {{Crossref}}, an inline hatnote. As in: Some article text here. (For additional detail see: Underwater basket weaving.) A bunch more article text here.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:13, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Copy from, and fix contradiction with, WP:MOSSIS. Background: [1]. 173.206.40.108 (talk) 22:23, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is an ancient issue, spurred by some unclear wording years ago. Although I hadn't realised it had propagated here too.

The inconsistent change was introduced as part of this: [2]. A change that was wrong at the time, is still wrong, was contentious then and certainly had no consensus for a change so potentially major, despite the apparently small change to the text.

There are two important axiomatic aspects to this. Everything else follows logically from that (although logic is not a strongpoint of WP editing, especially around the bureaucracy of styleguides).

• The project link boxes are CSS floated. That means that they are not really 'within' a section, although they appear in the wikitext inside that section. But their screen placement is more complex. So they need to be placed in the last section (of the wikitext), whether that's EL or not. That is the crucial aspect, not any semantics of them being 'external links'. The EL section (to the rendered appearance) doesn't include them - its content (and whether it's empty or not) is the content that's still left-justified (i.e. actual ELs).
• We value consistency of presentation, hence the whole point of having MoS. So the presentation of a sister project box should not change arbitrarily just according to whether or not there are any ELs present.

A past wording unclarity could be interpreted to mean that if we removed all the ELs, then suddenly we'd reformat a Commons link from a clear, visible box into one of the overlooked inline form - for no other reason than that.

A corollary of the first is that (as we've always done, and MoS describes elsewhere) is that we don't add an empty EL section just to 'contain' (because it doesn't contain it!) a project link box.

There are some other questions still in play: Is a Wiktionary link useful here (for a dictionary entry that merely restates the first sentence of the lede? No.)

Then, are there multiple sister project links? Because in such a multiple case, we might reformat to either the list form (with its poor usability) or else the container box form. But otherwise we stick with the well-recognised single floated box form. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:09, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So, let's change the text of this page as suggested by OP. Right? Gawaon (talk) 03:06, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No. These templates should go in the "External links" section if it exists, but in the last section of the article otherwise. What we don't want is for an EL section to be created simply to hold such a template.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:14, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't you mean: "Yes, change the page as suggested"? Right now this page says one should create an "External links" section for them if none exists yet. Gawaon (talk) 03:10, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Converted to RfC 173.206.40.108 (talk) 03:28, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! Where should {{Title language}} fit it? It seems to me like it fits with {{DISPLAYTITLE}} and {{italic title}} in level 2. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 01:33, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. In its code it uses DISPLAYTITLE. Gonnym (talk) 08:37, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Manual of Style/Layout § Links to sister projects reads

If the article has no "External links" section, then place the sister link(s) in a new "External links" section using inline templates. ...

• Box-type templates (such as {{Commons category}}, shown at right) have to be put at the beginning of the "External links" section of the article so that ...
• ...

If an external link is added and/or exists in the "External links" section, the "inline" templates linking to sister projects can be replaced with their respective box-type templates.

WP:MOSSIS reads

Most box-type templates such as {{Commons}} shown at right should be put at the beginning of the last section of the article (which is usually, but not necessarily, the "External links" section) so that ...

... [only in special cases], consider using "inline" templates, such as {{Commons-inline}}, in the "External links" section

Which style should be used? 173.206.40.108 (talk) 03:28, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The last ==Section== on the page should be used, no matter what the section heading is called. ==External links== sections should not be created for the purpose of putting a large box on the right-hand side of an otherwise empty section. Compare:

This was settled some 15 years ago and hasn't been seriously disputed since then, so I really don't think we need to have a whole RFC about the wording here. This was probably the result of a couple of edits resulting in the text accidentally 'drifting' over time from the real rule/widespread practice. It's not the big of a problem. I suggest withdrawing the RFC and just fixing the text. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:15, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Gawaon (talk) 08:35, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn as requested. Not reactivating the semi-protected ER for now. @WhatamIdoing: Can you help with just fixing the text please? 173.206.110.217 (talk) 02:28, 17 February 2025 (UTC) (same nom, new IP)[reply]

 Done. NB that the above text doesn't really contradict; it just preferred a less typical solution (i.e., it preferred putting Template:Commons category-inline in an ==External links== section over putting Template:Commons category in the ==References== section). Both approaches are acceptable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:03, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Thanks for the rewording. One small problem: There is a duplicate word. 173.206.110.217 (talk) 05:17, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, thanks! Gawaon (talk) 08:42, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The style guide says that the "See also" and "Further reading" sections need to be in alphabetic order, but not the references. In practice, we normally do the opposite. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:23, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps different groups practice differently. The pages I work on have {{reflist}} references in citation order, alphabetical See Also, and random Further reading. Johnjbarton (talk) 23:12, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It will depend upon the reference style. References within {{reflist}} always appear in the same order that they appear in the page text. If you use WP:CITESHORT, the first part (described there as "Notes") also appears in the same order that they appear in the page text, see NBR 224 and 420 Classes#Notes; but the second part (described there as "References") can be in any order you like - I use alphabetical order by author, then by year, then by title. See NBR 224 and 420 Classes#References. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:06, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My experience is also random Further reading and External links sections. If we're going to ask that these be alphabetized, we're going to need to specify what to alphabetize them by. In light of this, I don't see a better option than random. ~Kvng (talk) 15:15, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Further reading" should always be sorted alphabetically in my opinion, as it tends to be books and articles with authors where that's trivially possible. That also tends to be the case in the articles I have seen/edited. As the "External links" often don't have specified authors, how to sort them is a trickier problem, hence they often are more or less unsorted. Gawaon (talk) 18:28, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Authors are not always identified in Further reading. I guess a full cleanup would improve that formatting. Still, I doubt it is always possible to sort all entries by author. But, I guess that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to. ~Kvng (talk) 20:13, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that alphabetic is always the best answer. For ==See also==, that can result in putting less-relevant articles at the top, and burying a link to the most relevant one (e.g., a List of whatever the article is about).

I think the main thing to know is that the lists are usually semi-random unless and until someone deliberately imposes a sensible order on them, and that a sensible order is a desirable thing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:10, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:OVERSECTION says never appropriate within the body of an article. That should be changed to never appropriate within the body of a page, unless I'm missing something? Paradoctor (talk) 04:42, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're actually trying to say should never be explicitly used in wikitext or somtheing like that. Is there ever a case where = Heading 1 = is used? ~Kvng (talk) 15:20, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some talk pages. In particular, talk pages that are split by date get a =January 1= section heading. (This is more common at other wikis.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:11, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You mean talk page archives? Could you provide an example? Paradoctor (talk) 22:52, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Mjroots. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:18, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is just a case of a user violating the rules because they either don't know how to comply, or don't care about. It's not really hard:

• Level 2 headings for sorting
• Level 3 headings for individual topics

Or move topics to subpages and transclude them from there.

Or use WP:Labeled section transclusion to get the same effect without subpages, which can be done fully transparently, in full compliance with WP:TPL, either on the talk page itself, or on one or more custom access pages.

Tons of options. Customization does not necessitate MOS violations. Paradoctor (talk) 09:11, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The "Add topic" tab always generates a level 2 heading (as here). Mjroots desires that new topics appear under the "New messages" primary heading, which since we cannot expect every person who creates a new thread to immediately go back and alter it from level 2 to level 3, means that "New messages" must therefore be at level 1. They've done it this way since 14 January 2008, and I don't recall there being any complaints about this in the past. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:05, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please add new subjects to the bottom of the relevant section; If you are unsure where to add your contribution, the "New messages" section at the bottom of the page will be fine. I'll move it myself if necessary.

Mjroot doesn't expect every person to do more than just hit "Add topic", but he does ask for more: He wants users to hit either "edit page" or "edit section", then navigate to the appropriate place , and manually create a section heading.

there being any complaints about this Why should there be? A polite request to do things a little differently which one is entirely free to grant or not is not a problem.

You'll note that I did not ask for squashing a dissident, I merely said that there are ways of customizing that conform with policy. Paradoctor (talk) 12:45, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The MOS is for article space. Level 1 headings pop up here and there outside of it; Template talk:Did you know uses one, all the Wikipedia:Reference desks use them for dates in the way WAID mentioned. CMD (talk) 12:52, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:GOODHEAD: Level 1 headings, automatically reserved for the article title, should not appear within the article's body text.

WP:MOS: provisions related to accessibility apply across the entire project, not just to articles (my emphasis) Paradoctor (talk) 13:13, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You'll need to make the specific accessibility case to overturn the longstanding use of these headers. Entirely possible that there has been an issue this entire time, but it certainly isn't a guaranteed assumption. CMD (talk) 13:20, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't. What we have here is a contradiction between practice and rules that needs resolving. Which one, to which degree, is a community problem. To that end, I invited some expertise. Paradoctor (talk) 13:38, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As a screen reader user, I've never had a problem with level 1 headings at places like the reference desks. They're almost unheard of in the rest of Wikipedia (and that should remain the case) but they're not a showstopper where they are used in a standard way. This part of the Manual of Style is only about articles and is usually not applied elsewhere (hence the quoted text above), so I don't think there's a contradiction here. I do occasionally fix first-level headings on talk pages where they can also interfere with the table of contents, among other things; here's an example diff I found using the edit summary search tool. Graham87 (talk) 15:13, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As you're talking about me, I may as well respond. MOS:OVERSECTION does not prohibit level 1 headers outside of articles. By having level 1 for sections, and level 2 for threads, it makes archiving easier for me. I archive manually because I don't trust bots to do it the way I want it. Yes, I do ask that threads are started in the relevant section. Some editors do this, some don't. I have never, ever, complained if an editor has started a new thread at the foot of my talk page. I reserve the right to move the thread to an appropriate section, either at the time, or when I have one of my periodic sessions moving threads around. I am not aware of any accessability issues in using level 1 headings. Mjroots (talk) 15:21, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:OVERSECTION does not prohibit level 1 headers outside of articles See above: GOODHEAD is part of WP:ACCESSIBILITY. Paradoctor (talk) 15:35, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GOODHEAD is about articles, not talk pages. Explain exactly what the accessibility issue is, apart from seeming to be WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Mjroots (talk) 15:49, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

🤦 Paradoctor (talk) 15:55, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's at MOS:ACCESS. But read the literal words in GOODHEAD: "Level 1 headings, automatically reserved for the article title, should not appear within the article's body text." Note the absence of any words in GOODHEAD that sound even remotely like "Not only is using a Level 1 heading something you shouldn't do 'within the article's body text', it's also something that we've banned on absolutely every single page on wiki". WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:48, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since Graham87 has stated above that I've never had a problem with level 1 headings at places like the reference desks. They're almost unheard of in the rest of Wikipedia (and that should remain the case) but they're not a showstopper where they are used in a standard way, it's pointless continuing along the accessibility road. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:36, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the underlying accessibility question: the W3C guidance on headings is for the levels to match the hierarchy of sections on the page. Whether or not there should be more than one first-level heading on a page has long been a debate in the web design community. WCAG's technique on "Using h1-h6 to identify headings" explicitly notes that the first heading in peer sections of the page could have the same heading level "such as an h1". For articles, the community hasn't found any reason for another section on the page to have the same rank as the article's topic. But there are some project pages where for convenience, the first part of the page is devoted to a description of X, and the second part has requests related to X. (The second part may be within the actual source of the page, or transcluded from another page.) Although it's not my personal preference to have two level 1 headings on a page, I acknowledge that as long as the heading hierarchy within each section accurately reflects the structure of the sections, there isn't any accessibility issue in practice. isaacl (talk) 16:39, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The page Help:Magic words says:

• see MOS:ORDER for guidance on where to place magic words that are behavior switches.

but upon arrival I am greeted with silence rather than guidance. Johnjbarton (talk) 23:10, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It was added by Jonesey95 (talk · contribs) with this edit, at which time MOS:LAYOUT looked like this. It's not at all clear to me what Jonesey had in mind. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:18, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Any idea where in the page {{TOC Limit}} is properly placed? Johnjbarton (talk) 17:23, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That note, or the edit summary, does not make sense to me two years later. I scoured the docs for location-dependent switches and couldn't find anything. I have removed it. As far as I know, TOC limit can be placed anywhere on the page, but the top usually makes sense, since that is where the TOC appears in some skins. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:32, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Johnjbarton (talk) 17:35, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnjbarton: Personally, anything that controls the table of contents (such as TOC limit) I would put at the same place that the TOC itself is displayed in all skins apart from Vector-2022; that is, just before the first section heading. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:27, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion about whether new guidelines about the content of further reading sections at Wikipedia talk:External links#Proposal: expand the scope of ELNO to include "Further reading". Jc3s5h (talk) 17:39, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at Patricia Highsmith#Audio interviews. My first thought was that it's a MOS:FURTHER-style list of interviews, albeit more "further listening", not "further reading".

Should recorded interviews with an author be considered Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists of works, and therefore article content? Or Wikipedia:Further reading? Or just Wikipedia:External links? (I'm not wild about that last one, but I'm open to whatever you all think.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:51, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds "List of works"-like to me. Gawaon (talk) 18:10, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it belongs in the article unless it consists of interviews that have been referenced within the article, and can be moved to References. If an interview is included as further information about Highsmith for the interest of the reader then it can optionally be included in a Further Reading list. Ideally, all the important information from those interviews is incorporated into the body of the article, and referenced, negating the need for this section.

I understand the appeal of including a list of interviews of the subject, especially those that might be hard to find otherwise, but I don't think it is standard practice. Patricia Highsmith#Novels, films, plays, and art about Highsmith should probably also be reorganised into standard appendices or disincluded. Open to debate this. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 22:20, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:OVERSECTION currently states Very short sections and subsections clutter an article with headings and inhibit the flow of the prose. Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheadings.

I disagree with this. In 2025 people don't "read prose", they want terse useful information.

Wiki articles should be more accessible, with less long paragraphs that no-one reads, and more subheadings making the information easier for readers to find and access. Asto77 (talk) 06:26, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• If that's what you want, you can always ask a chatbot (LLM) to summarize a Wikipedia article for you. Gawaon (talk) 07:40, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  There's an important point here. With the spread of llms, it becomes less likely that Wikipedia is used for terse useful information. We know most readers just read the leads (which is consequently the important source of our terse useful information, rather than section headers), and leads are likely the portion most easily replaced in spirit by llms. Wikipedia's niche may shift towards being the place people do go to read prose, at a level between llms and an actual book. CMD (talk) 16:10, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I believe that longer articles benefit from subheadings to provide readers with a more detailed TOC/outline. That said, there is no reason to change this language. People unwilling to "read prose" (why is that in scare quotes?) are probably already relying on their voice assistants anyway. Strongly oppose. Patrick 🐈‍⬛ (talk) 14:36, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Readers skimming through text is a common behaviour, long predating the use of assistant technology. I think it's more a function of whether the reader is seeking a specific answer, versus just wanting to learn more about a topic. isaacl (talk) 15:55, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I suggest the problem is the "and inhibit the flow of the prose" clause. Here's the first draft of a proposed copy edit with that questionable rational removed: To prevent clutter, try to avoid giving headings to short paragraphs and single sentences. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 14:54, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  That seems fine to me. --Patrick 🐈‍⬛ (talk) 15:49, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't agree that the rationale is questionable. It explains why having a high heading-to-paragraph ratio impedes readability, and thus can be considered clutter. isaacl (talk) 15:50, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Isaacl: Well, readability sounds much better than "the flow of the prose." How about To prevent clutter and preserve readability, try to avoid giving headings to short paragraphs and single sentences? - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 20:04, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I was taught to avoid using "flow" when providing feedback on writing, because often there's a more precise description of the problem, but I understand why people like to use it. It's tricky to explain these types of writing issues concisely. Perhaps Very short sections and subsections clutter an article with headings and inhibit the flow of the prose. Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheadings. could be replaced with something like "Avoid creating short sections and subsections. Labelling short paragraphs and single sentences with headings breaks up the article into many small sections, which decreases readability by increasing the complexity of the article structure." isaacl (talk) 03:22, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm hoping for something shorter than the original. Maybe To preserve readability, avoid adding headings to short paragraphs and single sentences? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 05:25, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  As I see it, the current wording is fine and there is no need for change. Gawaon (talk) 06:51, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Gawaon: Will you agree that some folks think the current wording isn't fine? And, if so, will you also agree that the text could be improved if we can find an alternative that resolves those folks' concerns? - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:30, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't doubt that some people see this differently than me. As for whether I would agree to a change in wording, I cannot say, since it would depend on whether the new wording is actually an improvement (or at least, not a disimprovement). Personally I think that editors can spent their time in better ways than seeking to improve a wording that's already fine. Gawaon (talk) 18:14, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Ah, but what if editors disagree about whether a wording is already fine - say you think a text is problematic and I don't? Would your time be better spent not trying to improve it? - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 23:25, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  In general, yes. The MOS is just a tool, my time would be (and is) better spent in trying to improve articles instead. If all agree that a change to the MOS is helpful, then let's do it, if not, it's generally best to move one. No damage done, no time wasted. Gawaon (talk) 07:21, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  But what if you believe that damage is being done? Is your time wasted trying to improve the MOS tool?

  Or, from a different perspective, if I see an MOS text problem that you don't, wouldn't you be wasting your time protecting the current MOS text (assuming that any proposed change doesn't make it worse)? - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 17:27, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, as I stated, it's tricky to find a more concise way to express the issue. Many short sections do indeed interrupt the rate at which the main prose is read, adding additional mental load to track the logical structure. So "flow" is a reasonable one-word description of the problem in this case, though a bit vague due to the many other ways it gets overused. So any explanation regarding why readability is diminished is going to need some extra words. On a different note, I'm a bit uneasy with "preserve", as it implies the issue is with adding headings, rather than just the actual structure itself. isaacl (talk) 14:40, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, it's not a binary choice. How about Avoid adding headings to short paragraphs and single sentences, which interferes with readability? - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:24, 11 July 2025 (UTC) P.S. > Or "which inhibits readability." - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:34, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Sure, it's not literally a choice between two options. But there is a tension between a more precise description and a brief one. For a shorter verison, I would prefer something like "Avoid creating short sections and subsections, which decrease readability with more interruptions." However, it's not clear to me that this is more expressive than the current text. isaacl (talk) 16:54, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I think your proposal is an improvement. And I think you are saying it does no harm. If that is the case, would you have any objection to changing the current article text to your proposal? - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 23:24, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm undecided as to whether or not my proposed text (or something like it) is worse than the current text. In spite of my personal feelings about using the word "flow", I appreciate others don't share the same misgivings, and may feel that using it is more effective. isaacl (talk) 05:07, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  About your draft, you first said "it's not clear to me that this is more expressive than the current text" and now you say "I'm undecided as to whether or not [it] is worse than the current text." Is it fair to say that you do not have an opinion one way or the other? - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 17:46, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  No. Not having decided yet isn't the same. I was soft-pedalling my viewpoint in the first sentence in order to foster more feedback from others. isaacl (talk) 17:52, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't agree that more sub-headings makes information easier to find. There is a multitude of facts that reader seek, and thus trying to match headings to what readers are looking for is impossible. Providing a logical framework to breakdown the article is more valuable in guiding search by headings, for those who aren't just relying on an external search engine to point them to a specific sentence of interest. isaacl (talk) 15:59, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I think that "a more detailed TOC/outline", to quote @Patrick Welsh, also helps some editors, since it makes it easier to add new information in a relevant part of the article (e.g., if you want to add a detail about someone's education, then find the ==Education== section; if it's about their death, then find the ==Death== section, etc.). WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:55, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree a logical framework of subheadings is helpful. I disagree that a breakdown to the individual paragraph / single sentence paragraph level is desirable, though, which was the concern raised by the original commenter. isaacl (talk) 03:04, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I also dislike articles that are primarily a single sentence/single paragraph in most sections. I don't mind if it's just a minority of sections. For example, IMO a biography that has these three sections:

  • Early life and education
  • Career
  • Death and legacy

  is better than a biography that has one section:

  • Biography

  even if some of the sections are short. But subdivisions that are too small/narrow are not desirable. We want a happy medium. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:13, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Sure; it feels like we agree. isaacl (talk) 14:29, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Stubs that have short sections are fine if they are standard sections generally expected in developed articles. I largely edit sports bios, and it's definitely OVERSECTION to have single-sentence sections for each year in a career. —Bagumba (talk) 05:42, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @WhatamIdoing: We never did generate any consensus on the use of sections, and there is no research I am aware of concerning readability. The pro forma that you describe is one that I use for biographies and while I didn't devise it, I have used it as much as anyone. I have one I here that I created the other day (well, translated from the German Wikipedia version) where I simply used "Biography" for the bulk of the (short) article. If you feel that adding additional sections would improve the article, go for it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:34, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• @Asto77: Are you aware of Simple English Wikipedia? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:40, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]