Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Embedded lists/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Audit notice

In April 2007 Wikipedia's styleguides were audited by the Wikipedia Styleguide Taskforce with the aim to make improvements in the prose, formatting, structure and—critically—the relationships between similar styleguides. The results of the audit was reported at the talk page of the main MoS styleguide. The auditors assigned to this page were Matthewedwards and Dabomb87.

Defining when lists may be more appropriate than prose

There have been recent discussions on when embedded lists may be appropriate. There appear to be four appropriate uses of lists already identified within the guideline. Any there other uses that people feel may be appropriate? SilkTork *^YES! 19:36, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments on archiving recent discussions

Not to mess with you (too much) man, but it's pretty ironic that you just archived those discussions and now very first thread, started by you, is a referrence to the "recent" (but archived) discussions. I laughed to click on the link and see them in archives.  ;-) No complaint. Just  :-) TCO (talk) 22:59, 1 February 2011 (UTC) My above comment is clearly a bit too terse! The discussions I referenced were actually more about Good Article criteria (and interpretation by reviewers) than about this guideline. However, they did raise issues which I felt were appropriate to open a discussion on. Referencing them was perhaps a mistake, but I wanted to indicate where this current discussion originated, and provide a quick link if anyone wanted to reformulate their views. This discussion, however, is new and more than slightly different, and keeping the old discussion in place would distract rather than assist, so it seemed more than appropriate to archive them while archiving the rest of the page. SilkTork *YES! 00:28, 2 February 2011 (UTC) Page needed an archive for sure. There was stuff in here, from when they were drafting the content itself.TCO (talk) 02:48, 2 February 2011 (UTC) Actually just delete my comment, your reply, etc. I want you to have a good discussion on the topic and I'm threadjacking someting worthwhile. TCO (talk) 02:49, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

• MOS:WORKS is an example of where lists of items as a section in an article are acceptable and encouraged. SilkTork *^YES! 15:36, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
• I think we need to add a solid example of a definition list. Perhaps an example could be created out of Diseases#Terminology. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:06, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes. Good examples are needed. And the links should be permanent, as articles change. SilkTork *^YES! 18:12, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
    • I think it makes more sense to put the example directly into this page, like we've done with the others. I'll have a go at it in a little while. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:04, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
• While we are at this, I think it might be worth clarifying what this guideline is about. During a much earlier discussion it was pointed out to me that this guideline is about lists of links rather than lists of information. I started an essay on lists within articles - Wikipedia:Lists within articles - but that was not taken up. I recently made a delayed clarity edit, though I'm still not 100% convinced that everyone sees this guideline as being purely about lists of links. Nor am I 100% convinced it needs to be solely about lists of links, it can be about different forms of lists that are found in articles. Well, either way. Either we need to be explicit about this being about lists of links, and build on Wikipedia:Lists within articles for other lists, or we make this about all forms of lists. SilkTork *^YES! 18:12, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Huh? Read the whole section on bulleted paras with the Flatiron building and all.TCO (talk) 01:09, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

SilkTork, I think the statements made in 2007 were wrong, or perhaps they are simply now out of date. This page covers all forms of lists within larger articles, even if there are zero links in the lists. Consequently, I think that your recent 'delayed clarity' change should be reverted. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:45, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the 2007 statements are now misplaced - I expanded the lead statement last night to read "Embedded lists are lists of links, data or information that are either included in the text of an article..." which is more reflective of how this guideline is being used. SilkTork *^YES! 10:42, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Notable People discussion over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline

I've been on vacation so I missed the above archived discussion. However, I initiated the series of discussions for the Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline#Notable people section that took place starting here.

I for one vote that some items, like notable people, make for bad prose. Additionally, no one expects the List of people from Chicago page to read as a discombobulated series of sentences, so the current Wikipedia practice calls for lists when an article begins, turned into prose to meet GA, then turned back into a list if the list grows larger than 25 and gets it's own page. This is not entirely the 'rule of law' just how it is practiced.

GA reviews was the sole source used to argue for keeping the prose format. Dkriegls (talk) 22:33, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I feel that the US cities guideline as currently written is reasonable. There could be more explanation why prose is preferred over a list for explaining why people are both notable and mentioned as being connected with a location. I think, in general, there are times when lists are useful; however, explaining to the general reader why somebody is mentioned in relation to a city requires more than a simple list of names. Here's an example: Notable people connected to Rochester, Kent: Charles Dickens, Aulus Plautius, John, King of England, Rod Hull, Elizabeth I of England, Richard Watts. A simple list, even bulleted for neatness, wouldn't explain their connection to Rochester. A line or two saying who they are and why they are connected to Rochester would be needed. I think there is some value in having a children bulleted list, such as shown in the guideline example - Wikipedia:Manual of Style (embedded lists)#"Children", and such a choice should be given to people. This Embedded list guideline offers that choice, and people should take advantage of it for cases such as presenting information on notable people in a city. SilkTork *^YES! 22:58, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

We have bulleted paragraphs in this guideline. I don't see why you can't give the name and then a sentence long explanation, just as you would in disambiguation. I'm actually indifferent to whether we use prose or use lists as policy. I think authors should do whatever serves the reader best in the particular situation.TCO (talk) 23:13, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I think we are in agreement TCO. My comment above is perhaps not clear enough. I am saying that bullet points are acceptable as that would provide context. Where I feel there is in general difference of opinion is in simple lists of names without context or explanation, and that bulleting such lists doesn't aid understanding as it is simply a style issue. There may be some ambiguity over terminology, and it might be as well to define meanings. A bullet is an indentation with a symbol or number (on Wikipedia we generally use the * symbol). A bullet point is a short phrase which has been bulleted. Simple lists (or lists of items without explanation - "List with no content") are to be considered slightly different to lists with content. Simple lists can serve a useful purpose in summarising previously described detail, or for quickly identifying main points, and this guideline should be indicating where simple lists can be useful (rather than giving the impression that a simple list is always unwanted). In the example of people who are connected to a certain city, then a simple list would be inappropriate as an explanation is needed. Such a simple list would be a Laundry list. I hope that's a bit clearer.SilkTork *^YES! 11:29, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments on GA reviewing

I entirely agree with you, TCO. I started this entire discussion (now archived) with: Good Article reviewers have been known to insist on the recommendation that lists of notable residents should be represented as prose, as a condition before passing an article as GA. I feel this recommendation is being interpreted too literally. Two areas that often have a separate 'List of...' page, are notable residents, and alumni. My rationale is that if list pages can exist, then medium length lists that are not long enough to justify a separate page, especially of these two types, can be an exception to the recommendation that all lists should be generally be written as prose. Encyclopedia visitors usually want to scan down such lists, which are usually alphabetical, and not wade through a prose of miscellany. Examples that demonstrate the readability of list vs prose can be seen at: Malvern, Worcestershire#Notable people - prose would be ridiculous. Milford Haven#Notable people - the very maximum size that a list could be sensibly represented as prose. Entries may be bulleted and unless they already have a Wikipedia page, a one- or two-line description declaring notability. Links to articles related to an entry are encouraged, but beware of overlinking, for example if many residents have entered a varied career, there is no need to link to every item in that person's career. Red links should be kept to a minimum - in theory, people who are sufficiently notable will already have a Wikipedia entry. I appeal to common sense, or even WP:IAR, in applying this recommendation of list-to-prose, and and to stop failing Good Articles for displaying their notable residents in well sourced, tidy, descriptive entries. I would like this to be considered for inclusion in MOS policy. Concensus seemed to go in the direction that a 'Notable people' section can indeed be in bulleted list form if it has a lead, and the list entries are descriptive rather tan just a list of linked names. However, the discussion seems to have been closed with out the consensus having been clearly identified, and a consensus statement being made. We now appear to have a new discussion on how the guidelines should be modified, but I am still confused. All I ever wanted to know was: Are certain GA reviewers now going to end their practice of insisting that the Notable People section is written in prose as it was insisted for Milford Haven? Can the section be written with a lead, and a descriptive, bulleted list as in Malvern, Worcestershire? Can a suitable modification be made to the guidelines to permit these very obvious exeptions to the 'Lists-to-prose' edict? I either never got a clear answer, or if there was one, it was so heavily clouded that I failed to recognise it. Kudpung (talk) 02:02, 11 February 2011 (UTC) Who knows? However, this is not the place to complain about such problems. Try WP:GAR or WT:WPGA if you run into problems on future articles. Yes. Probably not. While limiting the page to advice that is accurate and appropriate for a wide variety of circumstances, we're not going to be able to prevent problems with GA reviewers taking things too far—in either direction. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:53, 11 February 2011 (UTC) Thanks, but I think we'll wait for some additional opinions, as one of the commentators is one of the GA reviewers who insists on Notable People sections being shown as prose. Kudpung (talk) 05:13, 11 February 2011 (UTC) I think it is a GA reviewer thing. FA routinely has short lists where they are better and I have even seen people criticized for overlisty prose. The key thing is using what's right for what's right. Let's write our guideline for what is appropriate. Can't help if some GA reviewers don't follow it. At least it stands as good guidance and helps others. Even at FA, reviewers incorrectly push wrong policies (I had one ask me to wlink the Mississippi River, which is the EXACT example of what not to wlink per overlinking policy). But at least you can point back. P.s. I honestly have no idea of your individual tussle. Want me to look at it, as just another editor and give me eval on what is best? (I am not pro or anti list, just pro best form for the reader based on the info).TCO (talk) 06:14, 11 February 2011 (UTC) This is not the appropriate place to be discussing GA reviewers and how they are interpreting this guideline. Such discussion diverts from the current attempt to clarify the guideline. I was involved in the GA review of Milford Haven, and I will point to the article at the time it was nominated - [1] - where it had three listy section. I will point to the comments I made in the GA review regarding such sections - [2] - and then to the article at the time I passed it after people had done the work - [3]. I think there may be examples out there of poor, unhelpful or dogmatic GA reviewing, but I don't think Milford Haven is an appropriate one to be using. And Malvern,_Worcestershire#Notable_people as it currently stands is a poor example of a notable people section. It is rather long, contains unsourced opinion in the opening paragraph, and of the 34 people on the list only 9 are cited, which is not in line with WP:NLIST and WP:Source list. The explanation of their connection to Malvern is not always made clear which also violates WP:NOTDIR. That list as it stands is a laundry list, and it invites abuse by encouraging people to add names indiscriminately and unsourced. I have tagged it for now, and intend to get back to it later to help clean it up. I will enclose this GA review discussion in a collapsible box, and create a section on Kudpung's valid and pertinent comment regarding use of bullet points by cutting and pasting the relevant comments from this discussion. SilkTork *YES! 12:41, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Note: Comments below are refactored from above collapsed discussion.SilkTork *^YES! 12:41, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Consensus [in recent discussions ] seemed to go in the direction that a 'Notable people' section can indeed be in bulleted list form if it has a lead, and the list entries are descriptive rather than just a list of linked names. However, the discussion seems to have been closed without the consensus having been clearly identified, and a consensus statement being made. We now appear to have a new discussion on how the guidelines should be modified, but I am still confused.

• Can the section be written with a lead, and a descriptive, bulleted list....? Kudpung (talk) 02:02, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:53, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes. SilkTork *^YES! 12:44, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I confess to possibly losing track of what's going on here. My impression is that lists of notable people might just be kind of a crufty practice in general (just as content, not from their listiness). I would not confound the issue of the appropriateness of the content itself, versus how it is presented. Actually the more it is just barely a "list", the more a bulleted format (or table, they are kissing cousins) is better than a frigging prose paragraph that is only a list in words. That said, I understand why pushing someone to write prose might make them think better about the topic and figure out something more interesting than just a pure list amount of information (some inter-relations, etc.)TCO (talk) 18:26, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I think we are examining the issues involved in this guideline closely and discovering more about the implications as we go along, so matters will be fluid. The guideline does need more clarity in certain areas, and your comment about content v presentation does indicate that perhaps an explicit comment about that would be appropriate.

Your point that presenting a simple list of names in bulleted form is better than a prose paragraph is mentioned in the Long sequences section; while the Prose versus lists section mentions that prose allows the presentation of detail and clarification, which a simple list does not. However, what is not clear is when a simple list would be more appropriate than either prose or a more developed list style. MOS:WORKS covers one example of when a simple list section is acceptable - lists of works, such as a short bibliography or discography. Though articles on writers or musicians would also discuss in appropriate depth the major works of that person, so the simple list would be in addition to the prose. I think we should mention examples of where simple lists are acceptable in addition to a prose description. And then we might consider examples where a simple list section would be preferred instead of a prose section. Articles on albums have Track listing sections, though it would be expected that the article when developed would have prose commentary on the songs before the reader gets to the Track listing section, so the track listing is an addition. The case of notable people in schools and cities, is that the intention is to have information about the people who are associated with the school or city - names by themselves offer little information, so the names would require some prose detail, so we should not have a case of simple, bare lists of names, but of names either in a prose paragraph or in some form of list style, such as bullet points. SilkTork *^YES! 15:58, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

SilkTork, I support your changes to the Notable People section on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline. I think the "preferably in pros" might now have enough consensus to be toned down. However, what was your reasoning for removing the suggested 25 list item cap?Dkriegls (talk) 18:47, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I amended it to read: "If the section grows then it may be split out per WP:Summary style into a stand alone article or list..." - essentially saying the same thing, but putting it into the sort of vague language that Wikipedia guidelines and policies prefer and linking to the appropriate guideline. WP:Summary style is equally vague as to when exactly to split, even when it goes into more detail. The reason we prefer such vague language is because we don't wish to create hard and fast rules. We like to allow flexibility for assessment according to circumstances. A section which mentions ten or twelve or fifteen people, but goes into considerable detail regarding their exact involvement in the city, may either need trimming or splitting, depending on the circumstances. The option should be allowed for a split, and it would be inappropriate for someone to refuse or revert the split because a guideline gives a specific number for splitting which is a different number to that under consideration. 25 feels like the right sort of number, but it may not be appropriate for all circumstances. SilkTork *^YES! 13:17, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Dartmouth_College#Alumni - looks like nearly a 100 names in that section. It's a featured article on an institution that has produced many notable people. There is a stand alone article as well, and I could well see a few more names being moved into the stand alone article, but it might be a hard job cutting it down to just 21. SilkTork *^YES! 16:07, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Purely subjectively from my POV as an encyclopedia reader, I think the prosified alumni section looks a mess - FA or not. To wade through that to pick out any familiar names that I might be looking for, comes nowhere near the advantages of quickly scanning down a bulleted list where the entries follow the syntax: bullet | linked name | short description | ref. By contrast, the stand-alone list in table form does admirably well in addressing the readers' needs from the psychology of searching for quick information on a written page. Kudpung (talk) 18:36, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I know what you are saying Kudpung. I think you are raising a good point. Not everyone has had the benefit of being taught scan reading - it's a skill that used to be commonly taught in UK schools (I used to teach it to my students, especially A level students, where it's an essential skill), though perhaps it is not taught so much these days. However, even with the advantage of scan reading, I think your point is that some sections in an article, such as notable people, may be read more than one way. That while some readers will appreciate being given detail and context, and others will appreciate readability and flow (given that they are reading the main encyclopaedia rather than Simple English), others will be scanning for recognition of specific data (or names in this case). We should be considering all the ways that people read and will be looking for information, and attempt to provide an appropriate balance. At the same time we shouldn't be aiming to unnecessarily restrict editors in the way they present information. I think this guideline has always been reasonably flexible, and is still flexible. Implicit within this guideline has been the notion that a notable people section would be brief enough to be scanned for names or read quickly, and if it got too large to handle would be split out per WP:Summary style into a stand alone list. Though perhaps that could be made clearer, and also perhaps your point that people will be wanting to sometimes scan for specific data should also be made clearer. SilkTork *^YES! 19:47, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Vagueness seams to be par for the course here so I am okay with your edits then. However, I agree with Kudpung, It usually just gets useless as an embedded list above a certain point. Dkriegls (talk) 18:47, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Definition list formatting

I'm not sure about this advice: My understanding of the linked page is that we shouldn't screw up the formatting (by adding stray blank lines), not that we shouldn't use it at all. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:43, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Blank lines also screw up screen readers. Rich Farmbrough, 11:39, 14 February 2011 (UTC).

It appears to be saying that glossaries should be structured; and that when they are not, it is better that they use bullets or plain text rather than definition list markup. I'm not clear as to why it is just glossaries that should avoid definition list markup - and I also note that WP:Glossary uses definition list markup. I'll look into the history of Wikipedia:Manual of Style (glossaries) and find out who added that advice so we can ask them what the issues are. SilkTork *^YES! 13:00, 14 February 2011 (UTC)