Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Layout

Discussion about further reading sections

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)

Not exactly further reading

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)

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

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)

Disagree with MOS:OVERSECTION: Wiki articles should be more accessible

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)

• 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)

  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)

• 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)

  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)

• 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)

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

  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)

  @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)

  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)

  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)

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

  @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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

• 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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

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

  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)

  @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)

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

Alternative to wordy "flow" text

In the discussion above, some editors have expressed concern regarding the following MOS:OVERSECTION text:

Headings introduce sections and subsections, clarify articles by breaking up text, organize content, and populate the table of contents. 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.

With that in mind, I propose replacing the text with:

Headings introduce sections and subsections, clarify articles by breaking up text, organize content, and populate the table of contents. On the other hand, short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading, which interrupts the prose and decreases readability.

- Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 22:23, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Why "On the other hand", when there is really no "one hand" there? The new wording is also odd in that it seems to suggest that a single subheading "interrupts the prose and decreases readability", when it's really too many subheadings with not much text between them that do so. Generally it doesn't seem an improvement. Gawaon (talk) 07:39, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

The first sentence in the paragraph lists the benefits of headings. The rest of the paragraph discusses the drawbacks. "On the other hand" alerts the reader to the switch. But I'm fine with removing "On the other hand" if that is what other editors prefer.

Can we solve the "single subheading is not problematic" implication by changing the text to "generally do not warrant their own subheadings"? - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:56, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

I still think the old wording is in any case preferable. It gives a clearer and easier-to-understand explanation of why overly short subsections should be avoided. Gawaon (talk) 20:13, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Application within sections?

Greetings and felicitations. Is MOS:ORDER also supposed to apply to the elements within sections? —DocWatson42 (talk) 09:26, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

I don't see why it shouldn't. Hatnotes, in particular, when used in sections, should be at the top of the section for the benefit of screen-reader users who arrive via a link like, to pick an example at random, MOS:ORDER. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:44, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

That's what I'm been assuming; I've been intending to ask for a while to confirm. If we get a consensus, I'd like it made explicit in the (whatever we categorize the MOS as). —DocWatson42 (talk) 01:41, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Anyone else? —DocWatson42 (talk) 01:55, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

I don't understand how the whole of MOS:ORDER could apply to sections, apart from the mentioned hat notes, and maybe {{Further}}, {{Main}} and such. For those, I agree that they should generally be placed at the top of sections, but I've come across sections of several paragraphs where these were placed in context. I don't think a rigid policy is required here. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:55, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Hatnotes, maintenance/cleanup/dispute tags, infoboxes (versus images), and shortcuts (in the MOS)—primarily top matter is what I'm concerned with. —DocWatson42 (talk) 07:38, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

The order of hatnotes seems underspecified anyway. I recently tried to find out whether to place a "Distinguish" note before or after "Main article", but couldn't find anything. Gawaon (talk) 10:52, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

I don't know of any order for them, either. I haven't been concerned with that before that (that I can recall). I guess you would try to arrange them as best you can in decreasing order of importance. —DocWatson42 (talk) 11:08, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

I would sort them by relevance to the following text: least relevant to most. So since {{distinguish}} applies to other topics, it should go first, while {{main}} applies to the current topic. — W.andrea (talk) 13:47, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Why in increasing order of importance? —DocWatson42 (talk) 14:11, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Relevance, not importance. It's so that people who didn't mean to be there can find out and leave sooner. People looking for a different page are going to be less interested in the following text than people looking for the main page. — W.andrea (talk) 14:13, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Makes sense, that's also the order in which I encountered it in one case – and I left it like that. Gawaon (talk) 14:28, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

In sections, to conserve vertical space in the layout, I put an image before a hatnote. This is contrary to MOS:ORDER, where the hatnote goes first because it is considered part of the title. ~Kvng (talk) 14:37, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Sections links in "See also"

Editors are invited to comment at Talk:Saint Valentine's Day Massacre § See also - List of organized crime killings in Illinois on the relative merits of {{section link}} vs piped links in the "See also" section of an article. Mitch Ames (talk) 07:15, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

Readability issue on mobile

Not sure if this is the right place, but I noticed recent layout changes affecting readability on mobile. Floated templates and wikitables are squeezing text, images, and other content into a narrow space. Earlier these elements used to center on small screens, which was easier to read. If this isn’t the right spot, please notify the respective contributors or space that handles it.

• Template talk:Historical populations#Readability issue
• Lodha people#Demographics
  ~ MaxA-Matrix 🗨 10:39, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

@MaxA-Matrix, I think you should post this at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:50, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Placement of the "Bots" template? redux

Greetings and felicitations. Where should a "Bots" template be placed in an article? (Repost of Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Layout/Archive 15#Placement of the "Bots" template?.) I'm inclined to place it with 1.7 "Templates relating to English variety and date format". —DocWatson42 (talk) 16:21, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Recent edits

Regarding readability and paragraph word length, see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Readability. Viriditas (talk) 21:36, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

MOS:ORDER missing a couple of items...

Basically, I discovered MOS:ORDER is missing direction on where to put a couple of templates:

• Template:Bots / Template:Nobots
• Template:CS1 config

I've run across these templates in some articles, but have no real way of confirming if they are put at the "correct" (consensus-approved) location at the top or bottom of an article. Thoughts? Steel1943 (talk) 20:00, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Actually, Template:CS1 config/doc#Usage explains where that template goes, so I've added it to the target of MOS:ORDER. Steel1943 (talk) 20:08, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

See the previous section but one for my opinion regarding not placement. —DocWatson42 (talk) 09:33, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Specifically Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Layout#Placement of the "Bots" template? redux. See also Template_talk:Bots#Placement on a page (@Cameron Dewe and Aidan9382: Bringing these discussions to your attention.) —DocWatson42 (talk) 12:12, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Works cited

Is there consensus about what goes in a "Works cited" section? I'm running across newspaper articles elevated to this section as in Stephen Miller and several other new GA candidates. I am happy to have books listed under Works cited, and, maybe separately, a list of journal articles. I'm not so happy about seeing the everyday media and press put there. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:41, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

I see no reason why a bibliography, which is pretty much the same thing as a works cited section, shouldn't include all the sources. Looking at Chicago Manual of Style 18th ed. p. 811, there is a sample bibliography page that includes websites, journals, and books. The only reason for a distinction I can think of is that since books are long, there is a greater likelihood that material from different pages will be cited at different points in the Wikipedia article. So the short description of the work (author & date), plus the page number can go in the notes and the full information in the "Works cited". But the same situation can come up with a long journal article. Jc3s5h (talk) 00:29, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Some articles use a citation style where works that can be cited to a single footnote (like newspaper articles) use footnotes, but works where additional information is needed (like specific pages in book cites) and where that information varies from footnote to footnote are cited with short footnotes and later bibliography entries. So in that case it would only create unnecessary indirection to move the newspaper citations to the bibliography. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:59, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, it depends on the citation style used in any given article. Some put everything cited in the "Works cited" or "References" section, others don't. Either is fine as long as the treatment of sources is somewhat consistent. Gawaon (talk) 07:29, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

While it is good that journalists may appear more important, I agree with David Eppstein that this practice introduces unneeded complexity, as he says, unnecessary indirection. The reader consulting sources (bottom up) is unable to determine any source for any statement without considerable backtracking effort. What is the benefit in tying up the press in knots? Wikipedia used to have functioning footnotes connecting source to statement by number in one click. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:43, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

It's not a new idea. Help:Shortened footnotes was created in September 2011, and the concepts that it describes are even older - Template:Sfn dates back to June 2009 (I started using it a few weeks later, on 22 September 2009 to be exact); but even that was just the latest of a series of increasingly-refined methods for making shortened footnotes. For example, this edit, describing the broad technique using a mechanism that is somewhat primitive by today's standards, was made on 28 October 2007. That's nigh on eighteen years ago. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:13, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you all for your replies. I guess this is just one of those (to me, maddening) areas where Wikipedia hasn't and won't make a decision either way. So, yes, no consensus, to answer for the archive. Best wishes. -SusanLesch (talk) 00:01, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Well, the consensus is WP:CITEVAR, as in any editor at each separate article gets to make up their own rules. So maybe it's worse than just "no consensus", in some editors' views. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:21, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

WP:CITEVAR explains the intricacies of citations, with only tenuous connection to MOS layout or infrastructure. I think we're all familiar with the task of executing in a different citation style than the one to which we're accustomed. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:40, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Notes and references section

Should "notes" and "references" should be separated in one section at a time, see this layout example. Absolutiva 11:48, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

That image from 2009 doesn't illustrate common usage. What's called "Notes" there are commonly called "References", and what's called "References" there is commonly called "Sources" or "Work cited". The image also uses an incomplete short citation, which makes it unsuitable as an illustration in the MOS. MOS:NOTES allows for several ways to structure this end matter section. The most simple and logical method seems using "References" if only inline citations are used; "Notes and references" – if both are used – with level-3 subheadings "Notes" and "References", and an addition subheading "Sources" for the full details of short citations – if they are used. -- Michael Bednarek (talk)

It is most common for only citation footnotes (per one section) to be used, and therefore it is most common for only one section ("References") to be needed. --Absolutiva 13:48, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

"Bibliography" is another common name for the section named "References" in the example illustration. Gawaon (talk) 14:59, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

"Bibliography" is best avoided, especially in biographical articles, because of the ambiguity: works by a person, or sources used in the article about them. PamD 15:27, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Granted, but most of our articles aren't biographies, especially not of people who wrote anything. Gawaon (talk) 17:16, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

I prefer clarity in these section titles: "Explanatory notes", "Citations", and "General references"/"General sources" (if the latter two are separated), or "General and cited references"/"General and cited sources" if both types are in the same (non-footnote) section. "Notes"/"Footnotes" can mean either explanatory notes or inline citations, while "References" and "Sources" are synonymous, and cannot be distinguished by the casual reader, so I recommend avoiding them. "Literature" similarly ambiguous—it can mean cited references, general references, or further reading. DocWatson42 (talk) 12:17, 1 November 2025 (UTC)