Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 59

Archive 55

←

Archive 57

Archive 58

Archive 59

Archive 60

Archive 61

→

Archive 65

Wikilinks in quoted text

May I ask some comments about adding wikilinks within a quote?

Some editors are doing that, and my gut feeling is that they should not, as quoted text needs to be preserved verbatim, and adding wikilinks to the author's quote, may not be what the author wanted.

For example:

There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

William_Shakespeare, Hamlet

≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:26, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Linking to philosophy isn’t appropriate here. It doesn’t really help the reader know what Hamlet is talking about. The reader won’t read that passage and then think, “‘Philosophy’? What’s that? Tell me more about this topic!”

If a quote is worth including in an article, then the things the quote talks about are probably also mentioned elsewhere in the article, so link the article’s own text, not the quote’s. Putting a link in a quote also serves to emphasize certain words or phrases, and sometimes that emphasis distracts from the focus of the quote. --Rob Kennedy 03:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

We already come close to covering this -- the Article says: "Use the same formatting that was used in the original written text being quoted; in general, do not alter it to conform to Wikipedia style". I wonder what they meant by "formatting". I am going to make the Article more explicit. TH 04:03, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Folks,

Let's say writers shouldn't link from inside quotes. It looks amateurish. It looks lazy.

Also, the MoS page says "Whenever reasonable, use the same style that was used in the original text". Surely putting a link inside the quotes changes the style of the original.

TH 08:21, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree here. The author's name and the name of the work can be linked, but the actual text of the quote itself should be left un-linked, as identical as possible to the original source. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:21, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that there are examples where wikilinking within a quotation is not necessary, is redundant, is unhelpful, is misleading, et cetera. However, finding one bad example does not lead to the conclusion that a general prohibition is in order. Our purpose here at Wikipedia is to build a web of information, and wikilinking aids in that. I think the suggestion that this violates the guidelines to use the same "style" and the same "formatting" as the original is misinterpreting those guidelines; it seems clear to me that they are talking about things such as rendering a quote all in normal text when the original text emphasizes certain words, or converting "To boldly go where no man has gone before" into "To go boldly ..." to avoid a split infinitive. I see no reason to think the policy is intended to prohibit wikilinking any more than I think it is intended to prohibit inserting a reference citation since the citation wasn't placed there by the original author either. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:07, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I think you’re right — the “use the same style” advice wasn’t intended to prohibit wikilinking. Likewise, it doesn’t prevent us from using Wikipedia’s font selection, indentation, line breaks, letter spacing, etc. Rather, it’s talking about other matters of style, such as word choice, grammar, and to a certain extent, punctuation and capitalization. It ensures that if people read the quote here, and then later read the original document or hear a recording of the quotation, they’ll know it as the same quotation.

However, I still think wikilinking in quotations is a bad idea. I’d rather have a rule prohibiting it and then make exceptions for particular cases where it’s easy to show that no harm is done. Adding links highlights certain words, giving them importance and drawing the eye toward them. That’s not the intention of those links, though. The links should be only to provide more information about a topic presented there. But like I said above, if the topic is relevant to the article, then it will surely be mentioned elsewhere in the article, not just in the quotation. (If the linked topic isn’t relevant to the article, then it shouldn’t be linked anyway.) --Rob Kennedy 01:19, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

See, I'm not comfortable with going so far as to prohibit it. Having such a rule creates a situation where if one editor thinks it is appropriate, and another editor thinks it is inappropriate, the second editor is automatically prejudged to be the one in the right. I could support a phrasing that says you should look for alternatives to wikilinking, but I can't support a phrasing that is going to encourage editors to change "A. E. Housman wrote 'Malt does more than Milton can, to justify God's ways to man'" to "A. E. Housman wrote 'Malt does more than Milton can, to justify God's ways to man'; he meant 'malt' in the sense of 'whisky or beer' and by 'Milton' he meant John Milton" and think that they have actually improved the article because now it conforms better with the Manual of Style, even if it conforms less well now with the actual goal of readability.

I have seen good uses of wikilinks in quotes, mainly to provide context. I'm sure I've done it before. However, I would be in favor of a loosely worded guideline, e.g. "avoid wikilinking in quoted text", since I think if possible, the surrounding material should be worded in such a way that it's not awkward or repetitive. My feeling is the most important thing is for the prose to read well in black-and-white. "Do not link from inside quotatations" is way too prohibitive. Also, I think proper nouns (people, places) should often be wikilinked inside quotes if it's the only occurance of that noun. (By the way, I reverted your original edit because you made a substantial change in a minor edit.) – flamurai (t) 02:06, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Related existing guidance

(1) WP:MOSDATE#Direct quotations: An important exception to these guidelines is that direct quotations—the word-for-word reproduction of a written or oral text—should not be altered to conform to the Wikipedia "Manual of Style". [...]

(2) Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context#Quotations: Some editors choose to avoid making links within quotations, instead placing links in the surrounding text of the article wherever possible. [...]

Prior (and ongoing) discussion

(1) Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 37#Wikilinks when quoting

(2) Wikipedia talk:Quotations should not contain wikilinks

(3) Wikipedia talk:Only make links that are relevant to the context#Links in quotations

An example (Republic#_note-Adams)

(1) "If Aristotle, Livy, and Harrington knew what a republic was, [...]";

(2) "If Aristotle, [ancient Roman historian Titus] Livy, and [17th-century English political theorist James] Harrington knew what a republic was, [...]"

(3) "If Aristotle, Livy, and Harrington knew what a republic was, [...]" (where the "Harrington" link is in fact a piped link: [[James Harrington|Harrington]])

Here I prefer the third version. --Francis Schonken 16:07, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Good example! The 2nd version also seems like it's begging for links.

Here the best alternative that occurs to me so far:

"If Aristotle [[1]], Livy [[2]], and Harrington [[3]] knew what a republic was, [...]"

That's maybe more "correct". But certainly harder to read. And a little strange in the implementation.

TH 00:36, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Dashes

Noetica, I haven't seen en dashes used instead of em dashes in sentences. Do you have any examples/sources? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:44, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Try The Elements of Typographic Style (ISBN 0881792063), which is considered by a lot of people to be the modern bible of typography. – flamurai (t) 10:50, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, first see Wikipedia:Manual of Style_(dashes). Then see here, in the general article on dashes. Yes, the spaced en dash is very commonly used sententially. Some publishers never use the em dash at all, in fact. A prominent example is Penguin; another that rarely uses the em dash is Routledge. I have therefore, with respect, reverted your reversion of my edit. Please note that many Wikipedia editors also use the en dash in this way. – Noetica 11:17, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, thanks, I stand corrected. Apologies for my revert. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:26, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

¡De nada! – Noetica 11:30, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

The problem with spaced dashes is that they can wrap incorrectly: a dash at the start of a line is confusing and ugly. Typing " – " for each one clutters wikitext, and using literal Unicode non-breaking spaces gets broken when someone else edits the article with a clueless browser. The best practical solution for now—an em dash set tight. —Michael Z. 2006-10-27 18:00 Z

That's not really a definite enough reason to prohibit using spaced en dashes. – flamurai (t) 18:35, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting prohibiting anything. This is just what I find to work best. —Michael Z. 2006-10-27 18:41 Z

The best practical solution for now—an em dash set tight. I disagree, Mzajac. In wordprocessing, I find unspaced em dashes so ugly, and so unfitted for proper and uniform spacing in standardly justified text, that I never use them. I also dislike (as a consequence?) their appearance in printed material of any kind, and in web documents of any kind. The solution with " – " works for me (though I normally am happy to omit the non-breaking space). Many things clutter wikitext in the interests of a satisfactory end-product. I think we can live with them, if they do that. Anyway, I agree with the majority that supports consistency within an article as the main consideration. – Noetica 23:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Seasons

With articles, particularly relating to some future development or release dates, they are often dated by company representatives as "due to be released this Spring" or something like that, leaving a 3 month period available. That's fine but when it is in a Wikipedia article it is out of context because Wikipedia is an international site. If it's coming out in Spring in the U.S. then it's Autumn for Australia (that's where I'm from). This is my concern, that when seasons are referenced in articles, they can lead to confusion. Of course most readers in the Southern Hemisphere will think that it's probably meaning Spring in the U.S. and work it out accordingly, but that interrupts the flow of reading articles. I discussed this with some of my friends and they said that having to "translate" is annoying and makes them less inclined to keep reading so I thought I should see if Wikipedia has a policy. I don't think it does. Also the use of "fall" meaning Autumn is very American and not used widely on other continents, so should it be in articles? These are my concerns/suggestions:

• Where seasons are referenced they should be dated with first quarter or similar, if a future release is referenced, it can be changed when more accurate information is obtained.
• Where fall is in the article, Autumn should be used for the English speakers who aren't American.
• I am not suggesting changing all units to metric because that would make many articles harder to understand for many readers.

Please respond with comments, suggestions and further ideas. I have found some examples of the seasons being used in articles:

• Talk:Pepsi Samba, perfect example of confusion
• 3:10 to Yuma (2007 film) "a fall 2006 shoot"
• The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian "Summer 2008 release"

Thanks, James086 ^{Talk | Contribs|Currently up for Editor Review!} 04:30, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

In running text that would be best uncapitalized, and spelt out first quarter. If you prefer an abbreviation, please don't add a superscript to 1st quarter.

The superscript unnecessary, just as these days punctuation is not needed to explain the nature of most abbreviations, like Mr, Mrs, USA, UK, UN, etc. Unnecessary superscripting and other such format-cruft draws attention to itself without adding any information. Using periods in U.S.A., etc., merely looks old-fashioned, but going out of one's way to add a superscript can look self-conscious, naïve, or pretentious to the reader. —Michael Z. 2006-10-29 23:04 Z

James,

I empathise with you, being Aussie too. However first quarter and summer (in the southern hemisphere) don't mean exactly the same thing. The first quater begins on the first of January. Summer begins at the solstice. This would probably not be a problem, though, in most cases.

Actually fall is not really American. It's just fallen out of favour outside North America. However, autumn, also being acceptable in Canada & the US, would probably be preferable ... except maybe in articles about a North American subject.

The issue of conversion of units is something quite different. No, conversion of everything to metric only is not recommended but the addition of conversions is encouraged. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Units of measurement.

Michael,

I agree that spelling a word out in running text is best. I'm not sure I agree about format-cruft. A reader who is used to seeing superscript might have his attention drawn to unsuperscripted stuff. Other readers, on the other hand, might think naïve as opposed to naive to be old-fashioned, self-conscious, naïve or pretentious.

Jimp 02:15, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad can appreciate my point.

No matter what you're used to seeing, when your reading has picked up momentum, you are likely to whiz through 1st and 2nd, which reinforce the text baseline, without stopping to think about it.

I'm not sure where a reader would get so used to seeing 1^st and 2^nd raised above the baseline, but it's the whitespace gaps which appear under them that change the typographic colour of the line, and potentially distract the eye from across the page. Possibly also the fact that the smaller font changes weight, depending on your system's font rendering (in good-quality print typography, special type sets which are smaller but match the body text's weight are often used for superscripts and subscripts). Footnote references are superscripted to pull them out of the regular flow of text, while these ordinal numbers are just words within the text.

Anyway, I'm splitting hairs. —Michael Z. 2006-10-30 18:51 Z

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Seasons was actually exactly what I was looking for, but when I looked for it I couldn't find it. I suppose my comments are now irrelevant seeing as it has already been covered. Thanks for the help everyone :) James086 ^{Talk | Contribs|Currently up for Editor Review!} 09:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

We Need A Definite Policy On ==External links== And ==See also== Content

I've encountered {{sisterlinks}} templates in both sections; i.e.: some articles have their templates in ==See also== and other articles have their templates in ==External links==. The same goes with footer templates like {{china}}, {{japan}}, {{Provinces of Mongolia}}, {{communisim}} and {{social sciences-footer}}, etc..100110100 06:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I hope you don’t mind: I’ve turned those template references into links instead of transclusions to make your message easier to read.

Anyway, I’ve never really considered footer templates like those to be part of any “section.” Instead, I think of them as being footers, formally after the last section, but for technical reasons belonging to whatever the last section happens to be. Thus, to dictate which section they belong to is to specify whether “External links” or “See also” comes last. That’s covered by Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings)#Standard appendices and Wikipedia:Guide to layout#Standard appendices, and both say that “See also” is among the first of the appendices, not the last. Does it need to be said somewhere that no further sections should come after those footer templates?

As for links to sister projects, since they’re all part of Wikimedia, I think it makes sense for them to be in the “See also” section. “External links” should be reserved for links that are truly external — that Wikimedia really has no control over. However, when a “See also” section only has interwiki links and no links to other Wikipedia articles, it looks awkward. In that case, I’d favor putting those templates wherever they’ll fit. --Rob Kennedy 07:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, but then it doesn't make sense in the last case; wouldn't it make the article cohesive and coherent if there was a special section for the {{sisterlinks}} template? I've tried using ==Related miscellania==. What do you think? Also, what about the footers? They don't fit anywhere, so I thought of putting the footers in ==Related miscellania==. Thoughts please.100110100 04:43, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

But why do they need a section of their own to begin with, though? They're meant to be at the visual bottom of the page, and aren't really part of the content per se; that they happen to appear in the edit window when a certain section is edited can be regarded merely as a quirk of how MediaWiki works. Kirill Lokshin 05:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

That’s exactly what I meant by saying the footers are really after the last section. It’s only for technical reasons of the editing page that the footers appear in any particular section at all. I don’t see a reason to put them in a special section of their own just to fix that. In particular, the name “Related miscellania” tells me, as a reader, that the authors couldn’t come up with any way to describe that content — in other words, that they don’t really think it belongs there. It puts the footers in the same boat as “trivia” sections. We don’t need to apply labels to every last bit of an article. Readers will recognize a navigation footer by the fact that it’s at the foot of a page and it facilitates navigation. --Rob Kennedy 18:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

So these templates are for navigation. There are other templates that span the side of an article though. The are not found at the bottom of the article. Maybe they don't span the whole length of the article but they span A length of the article. So if these templates are for navigation, I would be most conveninent if they followed you wherever you scrolled in the article. [Sorry what would be the term for that? I'm not a Comp Sci major. Danke.]100110100 07:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I’d call them sidebars. It’s not so much a computer-science term as a publishing term. I see no reason to have them statically positioned on the screen, though. They take up space that can be better used for article content. With a stylesheet you can make Wikipedia’s own navigation sidebar be statically positioned, but that’s different — it’s not really taking space away from the article. It gets a column to itself anyway. --Rob Kennedy 06:47, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

That's an idea (since it's in its own 'section' per se, it not part of the article, it will be easy to understand and make the article coherent and cohesive). But I've thought about it, & isn't ==See also== a section for Navigation? Shounldn't Navigation templates be there?100110100

Navigation templates which form a box across the bottom of an article are clearly not in any section. They create a visual break as strong as any section heading.

The sisterlinks remove themselves visually from the flow of the article by their appearance in a box on the right. But the way they are usually placed at the top of an "external links" section, they do have a clear relationship with it—and this makes sense, since they link to things which are not part of Wikipedia (Wikipedia has a strong identity to its readers, the Wikimedia Foundation not so much).

The only difficulty is when they are placed in an article with no "external links" section. Having them hang from an empty header is ugly. —Michael Z. 2006-10-18 18:59 Z

Hi. I've got an experimental template, named {{footer section}}, which can be used to demarcate the footer. (It is currently transcluded in one article, United States House election, 1800.) From its usage section:

This template is intended to be used as part of a technique for separating the footer of an article from the body of an article, both visually and in editing. Basically, an editor inserts the wikitext line “=={{footer section}}==” immediately before any navigational templates, categories, or interwiki links. This creates a section which appears to have a blank section header. (Simply inserting “== ==” fails to work because MediaWiki refuses to generate an empty h2 element.) In essence, it adds some vertical space, a horizontal rule (in those skins that use a horizontal rule with h2 elements), and an “[Edit]” wikilink visually. Now, by default, the starting edit summary for the section is “/* {{footer section}} */”, which is much clearer than the normal “/* External link */” or “/* References */” in terms of describing what is being affected.

There is at least one problem with this hack. Because MediaWiki doesn't do a very good job of creating anchor elements for section headers containing MediaWiki metacharacters, the backlinks in the history will not take the user to the section head, but leave them at the top of the article.Footer

I think that this may address some of the issues raised by 100110100. (Alternatively, the navigational templates could simply be put in a section labelled “Navigation”, but Kirill Lokshin and Rob Kennedy would probably be hostile to that notion.)

— DLJessup (talk) 05:38, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the idea DLJessup. I think it would be more clear if we made it policy that there would be a specific section heading: ==Navigation==, personally. I'll restated my concern that has not been addressed: for {{Politics}} and other verticallyoriented templates, these templates are obviously not at the end of the article. They do not address the issue that Navigation, or ==Navigation==, must be at the bottom. Another plus for inaugrating ==Navigation==.100110100 07:31, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, ok, the case is that I'm fine with footer templates & verticallyoriented templates from being in a section. But you have mentioned that the purpose of these templates are for navigation. When that happens, that means that they are not even part of the article. That means that we should put them always at hand. Maybe Mediawiki can be reprogramed? What I'm saying is that we could have Navigation templates in their own window, with their own scrollbar (have you been to a website like that, do you know what I mean? (Sorry I don't know the term.)) or have them follow you when ever you scroll (somthing like that (You know what I mean?)). It's like the functionality of the close button on Internet Explorer; (it's always there, [at the top]).100110100 08:35, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Please some comments; I want a definate anwser so I can change the articles when I encounter them.100110100 10:50, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the "footer section" template causes unacceptable usability and accessibility problems. The section appears as "Footer" in the page's contents box, but in visual browsers it appears as an underline with no heading. This can only cause confusion. Furthermore, in text-only browsers, search engines, and probably many screen readers for the handicapped, the "Footer" heading will appear. Hiding content for users of visual browsers while blowing off handicapped readers is bad accessibility practice, and has no place in an open encyclopedia. —Michael Z. 2006-10-21 15:04 Z

Mzajac:

You're correct about the accessibility problems, so I've gone ahead and speedied Template:Footer section since I don't know of any way to correct the issues you've raised. I think that the ultimate solution to this issue is going to be a MediaWiki plug-in that creates a wikitext entity, say, “<footer>”, to demarcate the footer section.

— DLJessup (talk) 16:39, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Hhmmm that might be a smart idea. I'm for it, but is everyone else for it? I mean, footers don't have to be at the end, hence footer, but haveit'sownscrollbarwindow,thatkindofthing[sorryIdon'tknowthetermforit] or but what about {{politics}} and other verticallyorientedNavigationtemplates? We need to make them footers? Yes, I'd vote for it if it I had to take a side. If so, could we please make them footers?100110100 06:04, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that trying a one-size-fits-all approach here is a bad idea. Some templates may work better as footers, some as vertical bars, some as other layouts. Similarly, some may be placed at the bottom, while others may look better in other places, depending on the structure of the article itself.

(And just to be clear: I strongly oppose changing all navigational templates to footers without considering the issue on a per-template basis. On articles where multiple such templates are present, they look much cleaner spaced along the margin than they would bunched up at the bottom; on articles with few images, particularly, margin space tends to be cheap, while the bottom-clustering produces a rather unreadable block of boxes and links.) Kirill Lokshin 06:25, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

100110100, what you’re looking for is to have the footers be statically positioned at the bottom of the page. In normal HTML, that’s done using frames. But frames frequently create more navigation problems, especially for non-visual browsers, but also for bookmarking. With CSS, we can make something stay put without using frames. Doing that for something along the side of a page isn’t so bad, but making pages work properly with static elements along the top or bottom edge is tricky to get right when multiple makes of browser are involved.

Some of the footer navigation templates are big. I see you’re familiar with the Bill Clinton article. It has five navigation footers. If all those were statically placed at the bottom of the viewport, I wouldn’t be able to see any of the article’s text anymore. The text is the reason I visit an article. The navigation aides at the bottom are a way of placing a subject within a broader context. They don’t need to be taking up screen space at all times. --Rob Kennedy 06:47, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Viewport? Huh?100110100 11:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

The viewport is the area of your browser window where the page appears. (The rest is often categorized as chrome — the scroll bars, status bar, tool bars, title bar, and everything else that isn’t provided by the Web page you’re viewing.) --Rob Kennedy 19:40, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• This is a solution looking for a problem. What would be the benefit from this? Titoxd^(?!?) 06:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. Before talking any more about solutions, I’d really like to have a clearer description what what the problem is, and its severity. --Rob Kennedy 06:47, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

The problem is disorganization. As I've mentioned before, there are many articles that have templates all over the place. And different articles have the same templates in different sections of their respective articles. We have a reason we have a Manual of Style; and we have a reason we have {{wikify}}.100110100 11:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

As I see it, the problem is that, within the wikitext, there is no demarcation between the body of the article and the footer. This causes certain symptoms:

• Many edits to the navigational templates, categories, and language links show up under one of the standard appendices in the page history (usually References or External links) because the editor almost invariably uses the section edit link (who wants to deal with more wikitext in the edit box than they have to?) and fails to override the default in the edit summary.
• While a navigational template is supposed to be visually separable from the preceding text, this often isn't the case in practice.
• Some newbie editors (such as myself, long ago) want to put the navigational templates under See also, which would seem to be a more natural location for a collection of wikilinks to related articles than under References or External links.

Is it a minor problem? Certainly. It is, nonetheless, a problem. — DLJessup (talk) 14:33, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

OK. But those are different problems from the one that 100110100 just described, which seems to be about the placement of interwiki templates, like {{sisterlinks}}, {{wiktionary}}, and {{commons}}. (At least, I can’t think of any other templates that qualify as being “all over the place.”) I’ve already expressed my opinion on those in my first reply.

On the other hand, your problems have to do with placement and appearance of footer navigation templates, and documenting of changes to the pages. When a footer is placed somewhere other than the foot of the article, I can’t imagine that it stays there for long. Even as a newbie, it must have occured to you when you saw the page that something didn’t really look right. Sure, it’s a problem when it’s misplaced, but I don’t think it’s worth decreeing in the stylebook that footers go at the foot. As for edit summaries, I think that edits to the footer area are so seldom that the problem is not just minor, but insignificant. --Rob Kennedy 19:40, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

No, I believe that we need templates in a separate section. Look, in a nonwesteren culture, they many not see that footers are separate from an article. They need their own section. But it seems like this is a problem with the program, not a problem with the stylebook. But if it is a problem with the stylebook, we DO need to include it; if wikipedia is to be for everyone, it can be just for the West who understand it. And insignifiance is irrelevant.100110100 20:18, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Where does this idea about non-western visual illiteracy come from? Can you point to some documentation or an example where "they" don't get that a shaded bordered box is not part of the article's text? —Michael Z. 2006-10-29 23:09 Z

You are taking what I said out of context. This is an example. To have Rob Kennedy say that HE doesn't think that information like this belongs or should exist in a Manual Of Style is belittling and discrimintory. He has not right and he is not A or THE judge of what goes in a Manual Of Style or not. Anything that makes somthing clear belongs in a Manual Of Style; any style rule belongs in a Manual Of Style. I have only asked for two requests:

1. To know weather this cannot be fixed except, and only by, Mediawiki, ||the program||

or

1. If this is not the case, to define rules, so when have Standardization. When people go to different articles, they do get confused be cause of different Styles.100110100 23:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Now hold on. I’m just as much an editor of this encyclopedia as anyone else. That gives me every right to comment on what I think belongs here. I am a judge of what goes in the stylebook. So are you. So is Michael. So is anyone else who cares to participate. (But none of us is the judge, and nor have we claimed to be.) Furthermore, I have expressed my opinions. Opinions are, by their very nature, discriminatory. If they weren’t, they wouldn’t be worth writing.

Back to the topic at hand: You said the problem you’re hoping to resolve is disorganization. Your example of the problem claimed that people from non-Western cultures have difficulty recognizing that navigation footers aren’t really part of the article’s body text. Michael challenged that claim. So do I. I also question how that example illustrates disorganization.

You also said that there are “templates all over the place,” and you claimed inconsistency in the placement of certain templates within their related articles. I cannot believe either of those claims are true for navigation footers.

I assert that putting navigation footers into their own section will not make an article appear any more organized that it does without a separate section. Moreover, I believe that doing so would be condescending to the readers who actually can recognize the end of an article without a special label telling them (and who must certainly be in the majority). Besides, people come to Wikipedia to learn things. If one of the things they learn includes improvements on reading an encyclopedia, all the better for them.

If you want a rule that says that footers should go at the foot of an article (which I don’t think should be necessary, given the definitions of the terms involved), then you already have your wish. I refer you to Wikipedia:Guide to layout#Standard appendices, which says this:

All succession boxes and navigational footers should go at the very end of the article, following the last appendix section, but preceding the "categories and interwiki links".

So, with regard to navigation footers, I don’t see anything that needs fixing by the MediaWiki software. I also don’t see anything in need of further rules. --Rob Kennedy 06:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, my concern is that there are some templates that are not footers that should be like, {{politics}} & {{sisterlinks}}. Now when I said that templates were all over the place, I did not mean it literally. but what I said in the previous sentence. A lot of footers are not put together, so to speak. Or Navigational Templates, as they are what they seem to be called. If, as I have mentioned, this is a problem with the software, then I don't mind waiting for the software to be changed, but if this is not a problem with the software, then I believe that we should have a rule that says all navigational templates should be footers. The case is:

What is a Navigational Template?

Well, wouldn't ==See also== be for Navigation? Yes, it is; that is what has been taught, from the above previously. Wouldn't it make sense if they were together, & less sense if they were apart? Yes, that's true. (Which is where my nonwestern argument comes from, cause it seems ihr can't see that.)100110100 01:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)