Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Embedded lists

message: Wikipedia:Collapsible tables, MOS:COLLAPSE and Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(tables)#Collapsible_tables. When should lists be collapsed? SilkTork *YES! 13:01, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Collapsible tables and lists

message: Editors may be interested in this RFC, along with the discussion of its implementation:
Should all subsidiary pages of the Manual of Style be made subpages of WP:MOS?
It's big; and it promises huge improvements. Great if everyone can be involved.  NoeticaTea? 00:33, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  RFC: restructuring of the Manual of Style 

message: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Embedded_lists#.22Children.22 seems to be giving the ok for boldface to be used in prose. New York City and the three building titles.
Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(text_formatting)#Boldface does not say this is ok, as well as the article the example is taken from, Skyscraper#History_of_tallest_skyscrapers, currently having New York City without boldface.
It seems to me that the prose and list examples merely repeat the text and are boldened in both, something that I am sure I would have removed boldening from if I had known it still was there, as I always took it to simply be for emphasis in the lists MoS so that people could see the differences.
In the discussions that took place in 2006 there seem to only be two people discussing, one says "I did not say that it is OK to bold the items in the list because we have other guidelines that say we only bold the name of the article itself", yet the change was put through with boldface, against MoS .
As it stands now there is nothing in MoS to say that boldface can be used in this manner. I am going to edit out the boldface as it is against MoS#boldface and appears to be a relic of changes made in 2006. If MoS is changed to include embedded lists, then fine. As it stands now it does not support this boldface usage. Chaosdruid (talk) 15:01, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That might have been a bit too soon: the top of WP:EMBED says "Please ensure that any edits to this page reflect consensus." MOS:BOLD#Boldface is actually ambiguous on this. I have posted on its talk page to point out the ambiguity and ask for its resolution. --Stfg (talk) 11:24, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Boldface against MoS#boldface 

message: I think the last sentence in the introduction, "Too much statistical data is against policy", would be better expressed/more grammatically correct as "Having too much statistical data is against policy" or some variation. I didn't want to just suddenly change an MoS page without asking/telling anyone, so... what does anyone else think? —Ugncreative Usergname (talk) 01:36, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. Adjusted. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:24, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last sentence in intro 

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

message: Discussion at: RfC: When is the presentation of statistics, such as with Weather box and Climate chart, excessive?. This concerns use of  and  in most settlement articles, down to small town and village level. SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:09, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion on when embedded statistic lists may be excessive

message: The lead currently defines embedded lists as:
:"Embedded lists are lists of links, data or information that are either included in the text of an article or appended to the end of an article."
:My understanding is that there are only two basic types of lists: stand-alone and embedded. That current definition of an embedded list doesn't include a list that's part of a prose article yet not part of the actual text of the article, e.g., a list in an image, a caption, an infobox, a navbox, etc. I think the first sentence should read something like:
:"Embedded lists are lists of links, data or information that appear anywhere within an article that is primarily prose, i.e., embedded lists are any lists that are not stand-alone lists." Sparkie82 (t•c)  00:51, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the line between embedded and stand alone is purposely murky. I've seen the 50/50 or 40/60 split enough to know that what is a stand alone list and what is a prose article isn't always clear. But with that, I don't see any objection to Sparkie's wording. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 05:33, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition of an embedded list 

message: With regard to the guideline that "the 'See also' section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes", let me point to this discussion: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Outlines#outline sections (not articles). Thanks. Fgnievinski (talk) 04:17, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  see also sections are not mini-outlines of the article 

message: The section is contradictory and unhelpful. It says:
:"See also" lists and "Related topics" lists are valuable navigational tools (...) links in these sections should have been featured in the article. (...) As a general rule, the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes.
2001:8A0:4304:8101:E981:3FC7:F236:8782 (talk) 12:28, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I just noticed this. I guess I'm not the only one who saw this... Dig Deeper (talk) 22:00, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradictory statements in "Related topics (navigational lists)" 

message: As the issue may concern the implementation of MOS:EMBED, editors at this talk page are requested to please join us at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Layout#"See also" content for a discussion concerning whether it is acceptable practice to link to Wikipedia templates in the "See also" section. Thanks in advance. -Thibbs (talk) 15:07, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: "See also" content

message: If you look at the article for The Crucible, there is a giant description list with links to the main articles for the character being described. I know, generally, headers should not contain links. Are these considered headers as far as this rule goes? - Dunc0029 (talk) 22:37, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links within definition lists? 

message: I'm a little confused about the see also section. I often put links to topics that will probably get integrated into the article later, and articles that seem similar, although that always feels like WP:OR. On the other hand, should the see also list be intentionally crafted to include articles specifically relevant to the user, even if their topics have been mentioned already in the article? I see that "As a general rule, the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body", but is it appropriate to just remove the links from the article body? My question is prompted by this edit by . Daask (talk) 01:21, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: That edit is a bit boggling. It is always better to have the link in the text proper. --Izno (talk) 04:10, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

text: Oh, I think I misunderstood your intention and it would have been better to address this on your talk page. I didn't realize there was still a link elsewhere in the content of the article. Then shouldn't Post-left anarchism be removed from the see also list per the guideline quoted above? Daask (talk) 15:13, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it should be removed from see also if it is already in the page elsewhere. --Izno (talk) 16:19, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crafting the "See also" section 

message: Please see: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lists#Overly long list items
Gist: Add brief advice about what to do about excessively large items in lists, to either WP:Manual of Style/Lists or WP:Summary style.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:28, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal on overly long entries in lists 

message: Please see: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography#Side matter: commas between post-nominal abbreviations – Gist: Is "OFM Cap FSA Scot FRHistS" five post-nominals, or three? (Hint: it's three.) These are forms of embedded (horizontal, inline) lists, so watchers of this page may care about the discussion.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:35, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commas and post-nominal abbreviations