Knowledge talk:Manual of Style/Lists/Archive 8

894:"Ref." is nice and short, but keeps the period to make it clear it's an abbreviation. I think the tooltips are helpful, just in case there's any confusion ("ref" is pretty widespread, but it's not guaranteed universally understood). Regarding the plurality, if all rows only have a single reference, it should be singular, just like we'd have singular "County" as the title in a country list with one country per row. And if at least one row has multiple references, it should use (s) to indicate an optional plural. Even if all rows have multiple references, I don't really like 11 as much, since it sends the false signal that multiple references are required, and for dynamic lists, someone adding a new row with only a single reference would be unlikely to know/remember to change it to 12. 1270:, or (in descending order of preference) 12, 15, or 16 as second to fourth choices. See my comment above about bikeshedding. We have better things to do than templatize a bunch of nit-picking options few people will ever care about or use, like plurality or punctuation changes. I initially favored 15 and 16 over 11 and 12 because more sources are never forbidden, and we are not doing any kind "References" to "Reference" conversion in actual article headings if only one reference happens to be present. And "Reference" sounds like an instruction. However, it later occurred to me that "ref." is equally an abbreviation of "references" as of "reference"; it is not mandatory to stick an 3113:

appropriateness of each list item. A reference index floating by itself looks wrong (to me). An obvious alternative is to repeat the (named) reference for every list item; easily done, of course but the result would look lame-brained (to me). Another obvious (but worse) alternative would be to append the reference to the last item; but then it would be unclear whether this reference was supplied for the list as a whole or merely for its last item. And one could supply an introductory sentence ("According to Taiwan Docs, the film has been shown in the following festivals:"), but this adds flab. Is there a better way of referencing an entire list? --

637:

example given would be better as an inline list.) Your version is how a lot of lists are already done. But in this case it's a poor choice, because it's not a format that's very good for lists of a few examples. It implies that it's a complete list (or at least a complete list of notable instances of whatever the subject it is, or all the instances we are going to be treating in the article − e.g., we often use it for cast lists for films and TV shows). It looks like an index or glossary of some sort, and we also frequently use it for that purpose (with entries often corresponding to sections that follow).

2881:

but not yet have the article. It is technically incorrect to remove all of these links on the basis of "non-notable" when what you really mean is that they don't have a Knowledge article. It seems like "many editors" are just using the "non-notable" moniker as an excuse to remove items to get around lists that don't use the "Knowledge articles only" standard, but it should be obvious how this is a harmful practice to Knowledge. I don't understand how good editors resort to these kind of harmful ways when

2832:. So, I'm also wondering why these links would not still qualify to be in a list under the sister project provision even if they were not notable since you were quoted as saying they must be one or the other. It seems to me that removing them under one provision while ignoring the other is nothing but an excuse to remove them simply because you don't like them for some reason or another. The template Mburrel describes seems like a reasonable way to encourage turning undesirable pages into good pages... 1137:. Lack of points at the end of contraction abbreviations (Dr, St) is effectively standard in British and some other dialects, while the presence of them is effectively standard in American and probably a few other dialects. Dropping the points after truncation abbreviations (Prof., Hon.) isn't an effective standard in any, and the major British style guides deprecate the practice (which is primarily found in news journalism, e.g. the stylebook of 35: 260:. It'll be interpreted as disruptive to delete valid list entries that have sufficient sourcing in their own main articles, just to try to force someone else to do the work of porting over one or more of those citations. It would also be disruptive, though, to go around removing citations from a list on the excuse that the list items in question are already sourced in other articles. Basically, 2952: 1382:. I'll start introducing it to a few pages (conservatively for now, meaning not changing any pages that don't already use the template's exact format). The nice thing about it being template-ified is that if wiser minds than us come along at some point and decide we did this wrong, changing it will be as simple as changing the template, whereas right now it's not an option. 1471:. The argument is that prose makes clearer certain information whereas a list can not, and the example is a list that starts with the intro text: "20th-century architecture of New York City." But what if only the intro text needed to be clearer and the list would work? What if instead of "20th-century architecture of NEW YORK CITY?!!!!" (sorry, had do that 2598:(plain/bullet list), which makes the prose quite impossible to separate into the individual elements. A list does not require that the context of the elements be removed, as was shown in the example. The prosaic paragraph of buildings is a list forced into prose by stating random facts about some of the buildings, and ignoring completely others. It 2434: 649:, the vast majority of readers already know what that is and are looking for something more specific). The list format encourages clicking away to one of the list items more than prose paragraphs do. Most of our list articles exist as a form of navigation and have little or no stand-alone content of their own beyond an explanatory lead. 2113:- We have been doing this in the "List of xxxx albums" series for a few years now to keep list size down. What I like best about the statement is that instead of just stating that no citation is required if there is a linked article, it states that verification from sources in the linked article is part of the process. 2352:::A highly cited guide to the use of isotope geochemistry in solving geological problems, and the methods involved. Has been cited more than 3200 times. A second edition was published in 1986. A third edition, with Teresa M. Mensing, was published in 2005, under the title ''Isotopes: Principles and Applications''. 3141:

back them up. The exception would be when it's a list of a permanently fixed number of things that do not change (e.g. already-complete list of presidents of a company that no longer exists). In such a case, have an intro sentence/phrase above the list with a single citation at the end of that sentence/phrase.

3140:

or some other shorthand for entries after the first one; obviously don't repeat the entire citation over and over again. Every list item should be sourceable, various of them will accrete additional citations over time, and more people will add new entries with (we certainly hope) other citations to

2602:

be expanded into better prose that references some of the buildings, but that would take more work. Listifying the paragraph, either with or without some supporting facts like architect, style, etc. for each of the buildings, and while maintaining or rejecting an overall sentence structure seems like

2160:

The editor in question may have only been interested in that particular Prime Minister, saw "Fifth Prime Minister of Andorra" and thought that was silly and wanted truncating, and did so -- or vice versa. You can't necessarily expect her to then go to all the the Prime Ministers of Andorra (or indeed

718:

The MOS isn't really using an apples-to-apples comparison: the prose passage has far more detail than the plain list beside it (the more detailed list below is a little more direct of a comparison; I'm not sure where that's from/proposed to go). I agree with SMcCandlish's points above, and that prose

2880:

or only if the list happens to use the standard that restricts the list to Knowledge articles only because there is an actual difference between a non-notable entry and one that doesn't have an article. A red link, text link, disambig, or redirect could be notable, and even have references attached,

2539:

elements. *{{cite book|last1=Faure|first1=Gunter|author-link=Gunter Faure |title=Principles of Isotope Geology|year=1977|publisher=Wiley|location=New York|isbn=9780471256656}} *:A highly cited guide to the use of isotope geochemistry in solving geological problems, and the methods involved. Has been

1495:

Is there a guideline for what should be included (apart from the person's page link obviously) in each entry of a list of people? Is there a limit to what can be included, for example, in a list of alumni of a college, for a person's entry, can we add birth year, death year, profession, birth place,

2156:

Yeah I suppose so, ideally, but it's unlikely to happen. You're talking about, an editor comes across an article about a particular Prime Minister of Andorra, and (say) changes the infobox image caption from "Prime Minister of Andorra" to "Fifth Prime Minister of Andorra" or vice versa, thus making

1602:

When it comes to how we present lists of items, my oppion is to always default towards tables. There is almost always more information than just the items and their descriptions (bullet list style). Creating tables allows the reader to quickly assess that additional information in a structured way.

1235:

arguing that it's a contraction rather than a pluralization of an already established truncation. That is, we already know that publications following Oxford/Cambridge style do not engage in the "cross-inconsistency" that worries you, so it is not in fact an established BrEng practice, ergo nothing

1637:

numbered) list is the right choice. Too often we have a one-column table, but that's really just a list with rectangular borders. However, when we have a lot of cross-referenced info, like engine ratings, distance from the Sun, volume in both gallons and litres, political parties of the candidates

1475:

commercial reference here), it was "The 20th-century architecture of New York City includes numerous icons of architecture, such as." Furthermore, what if each item listed included a description of it on the same line (as there are those descriptors in the prose example)? I agree with the message,

636:

The point of the MoS section isn't that it's impossible to encapsulate the same information in a list with long items; it's that WP is primarily a prose work, and lists should mostly be used for information that doesn't work well as a paragraph and works better as a list. (Actually, the bare-list

2912:

contestants, and so forth. Experienced editors often overlook a name without an article, if accompanied by a reference demonstrating obvious presumed notability (eg. a state senator). Inclusion on embedded lists frequently ends in disputes. I would support inclusion criteria for embedded lists.

2775:

I agree that for stand-alone lists that I work with, the notability clause would have me remove foreign language Wiki links. I am opposed to foreign language links in general. I was just reporting that Knowledge does have a mechanism for including them, but I would not want to encourage its use.

1371:

Hmm, well this wasn't quite as definitive as I'd hoped. However, I do find 207.161.86.162's point about some British English articles not using periods persuasive, so I built that into the template as a non-default option but otherwise took the coder's prerogative and designed it as I believe it

3112:

is a humdrum example of a common phenomenon: A list ("Festivals") with a single reference ("") atop, and presumably for, all the items. Let's avoid what's irrelevant to the question I'm about to pose, and instead assume that the referenced source is reliable, and that it does indeed back up the

2205:

Correcting one error does not oblige one to correct all similar errors elsewhere. It's absurd to say consistency is a higher value than accuracy to the point that one should rather be consistently wrong than partially wrong. Unfortunately GoodDay has a habit of doing this, adding bogus numbers

639:

When list style is used in cases like the five-building material above, it mimics a PowerPoint presentation, drawing the eye to the examples rather than the narrative flow and overall meaning of the section, which the examples were intended to illustrate not overwhelm. It makes it look like a

2225:

the Andorran prime ministers bios, in the first place? I wouldn't have added the numberings afterward. That's why, when I have to clean up bios because of your 'one' delete style. I always give you credit with an edit-summary that says "per Mewulwe" That way if anybody tries to restore the

2574:

I was surprised by the lack of direction in assessing lists vs. prose. I recently had someone revert an edit where I had changed a paragraph to list, while maintaining most of the prose. The paragraph was simply 4 examples in a row, each a sentence of almost identical form. The reverter was

2721:, the best practice is to use the template the best practice is to use the template {{interlanguage link}} which gives both a redlinked English link and a foreign language blue link, but hides the foreign language link if the English redlink turns blue when the article is created. See 2187:

has a habit of doing this, usually without an edit-summary. I'm not saying Mewulwe's deletions are incorrect. Mew, just chooses (and I've pointed it out to Mew, many times) to ignore the predecessors & successors bios, when Mew does it. Thus throwing the list of bios 'out-of-sync'.

1065:

No, because it's optional in BrEng, not forbidden, so it is not wrong and we do not need to care. I suppose someone with too much time on their hands can make a template for exuding different output (even singular/plural text and tooltip) in response to parameter switches, but this is

2092:"In navigational lists, where a valid reason for inclusion can be easily verified from the sources contained in the linked article, inline citations are not a requirement. This prevents duplication of referencing effort and keeps navigational lists clear of additional clutter" 303:

Prefer prose where a passage is understood easily as regular text. Prose is preferred in articles because it allows the presentation of detail and clarification of context in a way that a simple list may not. It is best suited to articles because their purpose is to explain.

2493:

A highly cited guide to the use of isotope geochemistry in solving geological problems, and the methods involved. Has been cited more than 3200 times. A second edition was published in 1986. A third edition, with Teresa M. Mensing, was published in 2005, under the title

2413:

2659:

The 1st visible object in the section is a short sentence. The 2nd visible object in the section is a table of examples. The 1st row of the table is an example of a Comma-Separated List. Which seems to me like a good place for an Anchor called 'Comma-separated lists'.

2254:

As far as I know, it is correct to remove unlinked or red-linked items out of an embedded list, as those items are deemed non-notable. But is that the case, or can every item related to the subject of the article be added, sourced or unsourced, with or without article?

1413:

Perhaps I wasn't sufficiently clear. My concerns about periods in British English only applied in the event we picked "Refs", not "Ref". Without the "s", a period would still be used in British English (outside of journalistic and less formal writing, as pointed out by

1516:. Another consideration is whether the people in the list are all going to be notable - if so, then you can probably be a bit more conservative in what information you include, since readers will be able to click through to a person's article to get more details. 2663:

Just above the section seems like a good place for an Anchor too. But not an Anchor called 'Comma-separated lists'. An Anchor called 'Horizontal_lists'. The same name as the Anchor that the Wikitext Renderer automatically generates from the section title.

2274:

Whether they should be removed or not from embedded lists depends on how the list was set up. Some lists like lists of school alumni likely should remove non-bluelinks. But there's definitely room in P&G for lists that include non-blue linked items,

2078:

regarding the use of references in navigational lists. I've seen several cases where experienced editors are confused about this, instead expecting unnecessary inline citations. I feel it would be very useful for it to be written down, clarifying that

1857:”; term: definition" source code markup. The request for comment is concerned with an alternative way of defining a description list, such that a line break wouldn't be produced between term and description in the output HTML rendering. Namely: "* 2603:

the obvious move, depending on what the parent article is (i.e. historical vs. architectural context). For scientific articles, where prose does not connect the individual list elements, a conversion to list formatting is even more obvious.

2907:

I mostly work on articles about Canadian and US cities, and typically, notable people are removed if their name does not point directly to an English Knowledge article. This would include redlinks, dablinks, links to a band or to a list of

2505:

To me this seems messy as now there is no longer a one-to-one correspondence between bullet point and list item. Is there a way to recreate the look of the indended, bullet-less annotations in a way that still adheres to MOS:LIST? Thanks.

1534:

Years ago several editors worked hard to come up with guidelines on how best to write these sections/articles. Not all are in agreement and there never was a complete consensus. Those of us in agreement wrote the following guidelines:

1173:

I'm only referring to contraction abbreviations (and I'm under no delusions that the stylistic practices of the British press around abbreviations are universal – of course the academic style used in encyclopedias is different). Would

1141:). People who read little but British news get the mistaken impression that dropping all points from all abbreviations is "British style", but it's simply what their preferred newspapers do for expediency, and they have not looked at 950:

There hasn't been prior discussion (that I could find), but my gut says that, without the tag, this would be likely to draw low participation that would lead to complaints about insufficient consensus when the result is implemented.

170:

issue. A list of links that have only commas (no other words) between them longer than three or four terms can become quickly hard to read in prose, and at which a bulleted list or similar structure would be easier to read through.

93:

Seeking guidance on how many elements in a prose list would result in a bulleted list as the preferred presentation format. The case at hand is mentioning the settlements in Slovenian municipalities, which range from minimal (e.g.,

979:

The full-length word is too long. A period correctly indicates it is an abbreviation. Plural is correct because there should be a whole column of references. A tooltip is good for those who don't recognize the abbreviation.

2164:

So it's just an unhelpful edit. Just roll it back would be my advice. Cheerfully pointing out to the editor the loss of consistency her edit caused and that it had to be fixed might help her to learn and grow, if you like.

2279:

the item's inclusion in the list is sourced. However, that needs to be established by consensus for that list. Lists where that type of approach can draw self-promotion should likely be avoided (eg like lists of alumni).

2132:

Is an editor suppose to be consistent, if an editor adds or removes numberings from politicians' bios, that are within the same group? For example: If one removes "fifth" & "5th" from the bio body & infobox of a

2872:. However, I still have an extremely grave concern about "many editors" removing every single foreign language link on the basis that they are "not notable". According to the information you just provided to me, only 928:

Does this need to be an RFC? Are there multiple pages with some intractable conflict? Is this guideline one of them, such that the MOS regulars could not figure it out after some protracted or contentious discussion?

2850:, specifically state that additions to notable people lists "Include only people with a Knowledge article". This criteria would therefore exclude interlanguage links, because sister projects are external links, per 644:

make sense is in overview articles in summary style which branch out to more specific subtopics (e.g., a general scientific field to several disciplines within it – while as an encyclopedia we do need an article at

1632:

With all due respect to Dkriegls, I tend to default to "lists", as we seem to overuse (and misuse) tables in Knowledge. Specifically, if we have a bunch of items but not much to say about them, then a bullet (or

3079: 2593:

These are independent considerations! The prosaic example could easily be reformatted to both be read as prose (uncondensed) and also allow the elements to be easily identifiable and readable and avoid a

2667:

Probably there would forever be 2 identical Anchors marking the same place in the Knowledge:Manual of Style/Lists. But in case somebody changed the section title, links to the section would still work.

3227:

Oh, sure. Been here since something like 2005, and probably broken everything at some point. I even had templates in my sig at first, despite that being a big no-no I hadn't read about yet. Heh.

3128:

For most lists (any that could be subject to changes in entries), repeat the ref for every list item, no matter how "lame-brained" you think it looks; this isn't VisualDesignPedia. Use shorthand

1978:. It's possible to create a template with CSS TemplateStyles to create a sort of "inline deflist" (for lack of a better name), and using such a template it's even possible to use the wikitext ( 758: 1181:

If so, my worry is that using it would either (1) create inconsistencies in articles where periods aren't used after contractions or (2) result in the imposition of an American style.

3060: 2717:

While I always thought we should stick to linking only to English language Wiki if working in the English language, there is a mechanism for linking to other language Wikis. Per

748:

It is common practice to abbreviate reference column titles to keep their width narrow. However, even among featured lists, I've noticed considerable variation in format, e.g.

2531:*{{cite book|last1=Goldschmidt|first1=Victor|author-link=Victor Goldschmidt |title=Geochemische Verteilungsgesetze der elemente|year=1923–1938 }} *:Laid the foundations of 1102:), does that not mean that, in all articles in British English that include a table with a references column, the use of periods after contractions will become mandatory? 764:. This RfC seeks to find agreement on the best format for these titles, which could then be added to this guideline or encoded in a template. Here are a bunch of options: 2348:*{{cite book|last1=Faure|first1=Gunter|author-link=Gunter Faure |title=Principles of Isotope Geology|year=1977|publisher=Wiley|location=New York|isbn=9780471256656}} 2652:

there is an Anchor called 'Comma-separated lists'. I can think of a good reason why the Anchor is in the section. I cannot think of a good reason why the Anchor is

2814:? So, I'm wondering where you and these many editors are getting the idea those aren't notable if it isn't mentioned in any documentation that I can easily find? 1777: 73: 68: 63: 903:, but given how many lists use this, I do think it's worth putting a bit of thought into what the best format is, and trying to unify around it for consistency. 1467:

Just reading this stuff to get myself ready for working on featured articles, so good work! However, I have a problem with an provided example, specifically in

1900:

Thank you, I've corrected the typo. Please let me know in case you have any objections to the absence of line breaks between term and description, as used in

755: 2629:

it would be appreciated. There is a dispute about whether three lengthy lists of mostly non-notable names should be added to the article. Thank you.

1536: 348: 2540:

cited more than 3200 times. A second edition was published in 1986. A third edition, with Teresa M. Mensing, was published in 2005, under the title

1543: 1274:

on the end of an abbreviation of a plural. Frankly, this stuff just does not matter. We need not have RfCs about stuff like this until attempts to

1033:

Contractions that do not contain an apostrophe almost always take a period in North American English, but the point is optional in British English:

749: 2340:*{{cite book|last1=Goldschmidt|first1=Victor|author-link=Victor Goldschmidt |title=Geochemische Verteilungsgesetze der elemente|year=1923–1938 }} 2226:

numberings? they'll know who to see about it, first. Same thing with the Leaders of the Islamic Emirates of Afghanistan bios. Thus my advice to

1508:

I think it's going to be hard to give a universal answer here. It really depends on the individual circumstances. If the list is something like

1215:

is simply a rather unnecessary pluralization of it. That it can be argued to accidentally also coincide, after the fact, with a contraction of

1932:

of bullet lists with bolded terms at the beginning at the each item, that would display/render as such (perhaps without the bullets in front):

1659: 2802:

Am I to understand that "many editors" automatically consider links to foreign language Wikis to be "non-notable" in spite of what is said at

206:

do not require sourcing in lists if the items are linked and sourced on their individual pages. Is it ok to edit the guide to clarify this?

2029: 1765: 1423: 1305: 1182: 1120: 1103: 1052: 21: 640:

section-stub, in which we have nothing to say yet, other than "go to these pages instead". Another sort of place where lists of this sort

562:(1973), the culmination of the clusters of "glass boxes" that transformed the classic skyline of the 1930s, began by modernist architect 2803: 2684: 2442:. I like the look of one bullet point for item, with the annotation being indented and without a bullet point; compare the "right" way: 1583:I'm writing a new article about someone who has published 20+ books and articles. Should I do it as a table as shown in this article: 1355: 559: 461: 426: 1513: 3238: 3203: 3152: 3093: 3020: 2484: 2400: 1648:

Sorry if this is unhelpful, as you now have two editors pointing you in opposite directions. It's not our intention to confuse you!

1329: 1289: 1247: 1156: 1081: 1011: 676: 279: 1970:

Logically, this is a definition list. But it uses manual bold-face on the "terms", and doesn't semantically mark up the parts with

2692: 2033: 117:

Do we really need a hard rule for everything? It would be fairly arbitrary trying to set one anyway, so just use common sense. --

1702: 1592: 1509: 752: 591: 149:

That is sooo subjective. How wide is my screen? You don't know. So you cannot know how tall a given piece of prose is either. --

2649: 2332: 475: 99: 425:

after World War II, began the clusters of "glass boxes" that transformed the classic skyline of the 1930s, culminating in the

2977:) description/definition/association list markup dozens of times as a visual indentation mechanism, and needs cleanup to use 2761:. Many editors--myself included--remove non-notable links from lists (which would include links to foreign language Wikis). 51: 17: 2032:. I agree the ideal solution would involve HTML's dl/dt/dd. Unfortunately, the CSS styling doesn't seem trivial to achieve: 2626: 999: 218: 664:), aren't really the kind of material an MoS page needs; MoS is already over-long. It's really more of an essay topic. 2722: 1698: 1588: 1512:, then year of birth is a highly salient piece of information. OTOH year of birth is not very salient for a list like 1346:

are all acceptable. They're nice and short and the period makes clear it's an abbreviation. Make it a template called

2206:

without any knowledge of their validity, just mindlessly extrapolating stuff from one Knowledge article to the next.

2464: 2378: 1655: 1584: 619: 42: 95: 3080:

Knowledge talk:WikiProject Fraternities and Sororities/Archive 9#Including list of fraternity/sorority founders.

2811: 1427: 1309: 1186: 1124: 1107: 1056: 761: 2688: 1670: 1476:

but I think another editor would have similar questions, so clarification may be needed here. Any thoughts?

512: 504: 386: 378: 3243: 3222: 3208: 3181: 3157: 3122: 3098: 3072: 3044: 3025: 2922: 2902: 2863: 2841: 2823: 2785: 2770: 2753:

The inclusion criteria for nearly all embedded lists, and many stand-alone lists, is that links must be to

2748: 2734: 2711: 2675:

Move Anchor called 'Comma-separated lists' to just above 1st row in example table (not counting header row)

2638: 2615: 2563: 2515: 2310: 2292: 2268: 2243: 2215: 2197: 2174: 2150: 2122: 2105: 2064: 2044: 2015: 1913: 1895: 1874: 1848: 1830: 1789: 1729: 1706: 1689: 1669:

And for a bibliography, if you do want publisher, date etc. you can always cite templates, see for example

1664: 1627: 1596: 1570: 1525: 1502: 1485: 1454: 1431: 1400: 1360: 1334: 1313: 1294: 1252: 1190: 1161: 1128: 1111: 1086: 1060: 1049:

in British English. If in doubt, or if the dot-less usage could be confusing in the context, use the point.

1014: 989: 969: 938: 921: 885: 737: 711: 689: 681: 631: 623: 615: 597: 284: 243: 224: 183: 161: 144: 130: 111: 2807: 1481: 602: 261: 3235: 3200: 3149: 3090: 3017: 2980: 2918: 2859: 2766: 2745: 2708: 2634: 2170: 2040: 1909: 1870: 1844: 1785: 1725: 1651: 1326: 1286: 1244: 1153: 1078: 705: 673: 553: 455: 414: 276: 3059:

talk page about list creation/inclusion which could use outside input. Please join in the conversation

2868:

Ok thanks. I've looked into this deeper and found some rules governing what you are talking about at:

2898: 2876:

use the "Knowledge articles only" standard. So, by that logic these links should only be removed per

2837: 2819: 2304: 2262: 2075: 1349: 231: 199: 2988: 2611: 2595: 2559: 2060: 1891: 1826: 1795: 1685: 985: 167: 157: 3082:, without a clear resolution. But there have been later follow-up discussions about lists there. 3068: 3039: 2966: 2781: 2730: 2448: 2358: 2118: 2000:

parameter to achieve it. Personally, I'd like to have an "inline deflist" template (or option to

1620: 1563: 533: 443: 402: 308: 1098:

Because internal consistency in articles is required, if we were to decide on, e.g., option 15 (

2882: 2877: 2851: 2511: 2481: 2397: 2239: 2211: 2193: 2146: 1990: 1815: 1521: 1477: 1219:(only) is probably immaterial, since that's not how it was derived. It's exactly parallel to 543: 523: 449: 437: 406: 390: 2329:

Annotations should be indented (by adding a colon in front) and cited with a reliable source.

1641:

For just a bibliography, I would lean to the basic list of books, as in the main examples at

3230: 3195: 3163: 3144: 3085: 3012: 2914: 2886: 2869: 2855: 2791: 2762: 2740: 2703: 2630: 2166: 2101: 2080: 2036: 1905: 1866: 1840: 1781: 1721: 1642: 1415: 1321: 1281: 1239: 1168: 1148: 1116: 1093: 1073: 700: 668: 271: 213: 140: 107: 3218: 3177: 3118: 2894: 2833: 2815: 2299: 2288: 2257: 899:

Overall, yes, this is a pretty finicky thing that's likely going to be relevant mainly at

265: 179: 1195:

It's a definitional point people could argue over until the end of time. I would argue

135:

Perhaps when the vertical dimension of the prose list exceeds the horizontal dimension?

3056: 2847: 2607: 2552: 2229: 2056: 1884: 1819: 1678: 1275: 981: 934: 527: 508: 394: 382: 342: 335: 236: 150: 126: 1963:* '''Term 1''': a description of 'term 1'. * '''Term 2''': a description of 'term 2'. 3064: 3032: 2777: 2758: 2726: 2718: 2551:

In this way, you still have one bulleted list, but each entry contains a sub-list. --

2426: 2324: 2114: 2011: 1750: 1605: 1548: 1376: 900: 3168:. Well, even aside from its commendable adaptability, that's clearly preferable to 3135: 2523: 2507: 2473: 2460: 2389: 2374: 2235: 2207: 2189: 2182: 2142: 1712:

Request for comment on line breaks between term and definition in description lists

1517: 1067: 695: 563: 537: 418: 398: 345:

articles can be improved by converting unnecessary lists into encyclopedic prose.

1046: 1042: 1038: 2806:

and also in spite of the fact that notability is not mentioned even one time at

2097: 1227:. I'm not aware of any British/Commonwealth-English publication that would use 567: 498: 422: 374: 249: 208: 203: 136: 103: 50:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

3214: 3173: 3114: 2281: 1773: 1472: 1419: 1134: 1027: 1023: 172: 698:. Although this is a different issue, it is one that decreases readability. 652:

Observations like these, along with illustrative examples of more list uses (

2942: 2606:

So why are the two 'list' concepts conflated? Any why do people hate lists?

2579: 2035:. Plus, I'm not sure if the mobile app would support well arbitrary styles? 1901: 1862: 1769: 1717: 1468: 1442: 1408: 1388: 957: 945: 930: 909: 873: 725: 646: 377:. In the first few decades of the century, the city became a center for the 119: 1436:

Oh oops, I didn't read closely enough. I'll modify to remove that option.

503:

In the first few decades of the century, the city became a center for the

341:

can be used to indicate a list which may be better-written as prose. Many

2023: 2006: 1497: 547: 410: 2586:

condensing content to only the objective, uniform info (names and dates)

1638:

and the votes they received, etc., then a table is surely the way to go.

405:(1913), a neo-Gothic "Cathedral of Commerce" overlooking City Hall; the 3192:, since we don't put templates and other complex code inside headings. 3009:

markup. But I'm not finding I have the time and patience to do it all.

2582:, which contrasts two completely different ideas (list for emphasis): 536:(1913), a neo-Gothic "Cathedral of Commerce" overlooking City Hall by 1814:

matter is that there must not be any blank lines, as that would be a

1645:. No need for separate columns like publisher or year of publication. 2796:

Many editors--myself included--remove non-notable links from lists (

2698:

Can lists of people include links to people on other language Wikis?

3213:

You name the atrocity, I've probably perpetrated it in my time. --

497:

includes numerous icons of architecture, most notably its striking

373:

includes numerous icons of architecture, most notably its striking

1603:

Be it finding publication dates, publisher information, or ISBN#.

1853:

Thank you for your clarification about line breaks in the common

1587: or as a bullet point list, as I see in many places. Thank you. 2678:

Insert Anchor called 'Horizontal_lists' just above section title

2440:

don't do this (switch type from bullet list to description list)

699: 2993:. And, where DLISTs are appropriate, it should be using proper 264:

applies: don't do anything that damages the content just to be

2955: 2297:

In this case, it is in relation to artists of a record label.

29: 1986:) definition list markup. But it's probably better to extend 2702:

Or do they have to have an article showing notability here?

1278:

normalize things turn into otherwise unresolvable disputes.

256:

does not equate to a requirement that they be already verifi

2828:

I'm only asking because you insisted links must be notable

2051:

Sentence case is used for around 99% of lists on Knowledge.

2083:

is beneficial and standard practice in these situations.

1304:

in parentheses in your second choice but not your first?

892:

10 or 12, based on how many references there are per row.

2627:

Talk:Fort Albany First Nation#Notability of council list

3169: 3109: 2004:) (with default hanging indent for the first line). — 1768:) and widespread (occurring in 17k articles, including 1756:

introduce a line break, the usage without line breaks,

323: 316: 2344:::Laid the foundations of ], including the ] elements. 1839:

The previous discussion is linked from my vote above.

2578:

I am particularly confused by the comparison made in

2137:. Shouldn't that editor make the same deletions for 1542:

For the best example of a top quality list, see the

1022:– Isn't the difference between "Refs" and "Refs." a 744:

RfC: Standardizing shortened reference column titles

2969:. The short version is that the article is abusing 2798:

which would include links to foreign language Wikis

2327:about how to annotate a bibliography, and it reads 1761: 1757: 356:Example of the difference between prose and a list 2889:are good enough to quote for removing all of them 1178:" not be a contraction (rather than a truncation)? 2030:Knowledge:Manual_of_Style/Glossaries#Bullet-style 1798:? That aside, the MediaWiki software treats this 1236:for WP to use, especially not on ENGVAR grounds. 2804:Knowledge:Wikimedia_sister_projects#When_to_link 1372:should be. Feel free to check out the result at 2589:formatting list content to be more easily read. 2444: 2337: 1776:for terms applies only to prose not lists. See 1716:Are line breaks between term and definition in 1199:, because the original, "root" abbreviation is 719:would be the right way to go for that content. 694:The example prose section suffers from extreme 526:(1902), where Fifth Avenue crosses Broadway at 393:(1902), where Fifth Avenue crosses Broadway at 252:policy on the requirement that things be verifi 3078:This seems to have pretty quickly archived to 2625:If an editor is able to give clarification at 1540:section of the WikiProject Cities/US Guideline 3187: 1794:Why do you need a RfC for this? Where is the 1418:) and would still be necessary to conform to 1145:or anything from the British academic press. 1031: 589: 296: 8: 2453:Geochemische Verteilungsgesetze der elemente 2363:Geochemische Verteilungsgesetze der elemente 2319:What is the "proper" way to annotate a list? 2074:I'm planning to add some additional text at 556:(1931), another pure expression of Art Deco; 2161:of world history) and make the same change. 1510:List of people born in international waters 1300:Out of curiosity, why would you favour the 997:—but it's not a super strong preference. -- 659: 653: 2961:Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere. 1928:. Opener is requesting comments about the 1677:on the third entry and all subsequent). -- 577: 495:20th-century architecture of New York City 433:20th-century architecture of New York City 389:. New York's new skyscrapers included the 371:20th-century architecture of New York City 2333:List of important publications in geology 2028:a suboptimal solution is described here: 1861:: description", as used in, for example, 1807:;Birds :Have feathers ;Mammals :Have fur 1934: 1544:List of people from Park Ridge, Illinois 484: 354: 2221:If you had deleted the numberings from 1801:;Birds:Have feathers ;Mammals:Have fur 2985:or (where actual quotations are used) 2795: 2575:puritanically against embedded lists. 2430: 2328: 1997: 1674: 1354:or something to ensure consistency. – 1297:; rev'd 13:36, 14 November 2020 (UTC) 1041:in American and Canadian English, but 859: 855: 851: 850:Don't allow abbreviations; always use 48:Do not edit the contents of this page. 2854:. This may need more clarification. 2644:Anchor called 'Comma-separated lists' 2544:Isotopes: Principles and Applications 2496:Isotopes: Principles and Applications 2416:Isotopes: Principles and Applications 519:New York's new skyscrapers included: 7: 3105:Single reference for every list item 2643: 1996:with TemplateStyles and an optional 1671:Steve Jones (biologist)#Publications 842: 837: 832: 822: 812: 797: 507:movement, represented by architects 381:movement, represented by architects 2974: 1975: 1971: 293:Do text walls really read better?.. 166:Its not a screenwidth issue, its a 1514:List of Nobel laureates in Physics 1318:Wasn't intentional. I've revised. 1175: 1099: 827: 817: 807: 792: 349:WP:Manual of Style/Trivia sections 198:I've had a few editors argue that 89:Number of elements in a prose list 28: 2331:An article making use of this is 2234:, not to reverse your deletions. 2157:it different from all the others? 1673:(although personally I would use 802: 787: 299:Use prose where understood easily 2950: 2725:for the template documentation. 2432: 2141:the prime ministers of Andorra? 33: 2250:Embedded lists & notability 1926:This RFC is poorly named/worded 1810:It really doesn't matter. What 1496:nationality, nick names, etc.? 1231:but which would then switch to 476:Knowledge:Manual of Style/Lists 3031:Fixed the lion's share of it. 18:Knowledge talk:Manual of Style 1: 3244:06:17, 14 November 2023 (UTC) 3228: 3223:04:37, 14 November 2023 (UTC) 3209:02:59, 14 November 2023 (UTC) 3193: 3182:02:00, 14 November 2023 (UTC) 3158:01:44, 14 November 2023 (UTC) 3142: 3123:01:23, 14 November 2023 (UTC) 3099:03:15, 14 November 2023 (UTC) 3083: 3055:There is a discussion at the 3010: 2693:21:05, 26 February 2023 (UTC) 2616:14:49, 30 November 2022 (UTC) 2478:Principles of Isotope Geology 2394:Principles of Isotope Geology 2311:12:37, 8 September 2022 (UTC) 2293:12:26, 8 September 2022 (UTC) 2269:09:06, 8 September 2022 (UTC) 1597:05:32, 28 November 2021 (UTC) 1491:Guideline for lists of people 1486:16:34, 28 February 2021 (UTC) 1455:05:01, 12 November 2020 (UTC) 1432:04:49, 12 November 2020 (UTC) 1401:03:08, 12 November 2020 (UTC) 1335:03:03, 10 November 2020 (UTC) 1319: 1279: 1253:03:12, 10 November 2020 (UTC) 1237: 1203:(which can in fact stand for 1191:02:06, 10 November 2020 (UTC) 1146: 1071: 738:21:57, 10 November 2020 (UTC) 712:21:32, 10 November 2020 (UTC) 666: 603:14:26, 16 February 2020 (UTC) 546:(1929), a pure expression of 488:Hierarchic (index optimized) 409:(1929), a pure expression of 269: 3045:19:52, 28 October 2023 (UTC) 3026:11:09, 28 October 2023 (UTC) 2967:Talk:Singular they#MOS:DLIST 2639:15:36, 6 December 2022 (UTC) 2564:20:42, 4 November 2022 (UTC) 2516:04:51, 4 November 2022 (UTC) 2045:23:38, 26 January 2022 (UTC) 2016:19:05, 24 January 2022 (UTC) 1957:: a description of 'term 2'. 1951:: a description of 'term 1'. 1914:23:01, 23 January 2022 (UTC) 1896:22:33, 23 January 2022 (UTC) 1875:01:04, 23 January 2022 (UTC) 1849:01:04, 23 January 2022 (UTC) 1831:21:32, 17 January 2022 (UTC) 1790:03:34, 17 January 2022 (UTC) 1730:03:30, 17 January 2022 (UTC) 1707:08:44, 7 December 2021 (UTC) 1690:08:48, 5 December 2021 (UTC) 1665:02:43, 5 December 2021 (UTC) 1628:22:40, 1 December 2021 (UTC) 1571:22:36, 1 December 2021 (UTC) 1361:15:19, 22 October 2020 (UTC) 1314:05:41, 5 November 2020 (UTC) 1295:05:47, 20 October 2020 (UTC) 1162:06:41, 7 November 2020 (UTC) 1129:05:39, 5 November 2020 (UTC) 1112:20:23, 21 October 2020 (UTC) 1087:05:47, 20 October 2020 (UTC) 1061:00:37, 20 October 2020 (UTC) 1015:07:09, 16 October 2020 (UTC) 990:16:32, 11 October 2020 (UTC) 970:16:25, 11 October 2020 (UTC) 939:13:33, 11 October 2020 (UTC) 922:08:10, 11 October 2020 (UTC) 886:08:10, 11 October 2020 (UTC) 682:12:46, 20 October 2020 (UTC) 417:(1931). Modernist architect 285:05:52, 20 October 2020 (UTC) 3051:WikiProject list discussion 2723:Template:Interlanguage link 2055:What's the other 1% using? 1902:Knowledge#Methods of access 1879:It's the other way around: 1863:Knowledge#Methods of access 1738:: Although special markup ( 346: 3268: 2948: 2923:08:43, 24 March 2023 (UTC) 2903:05:51, 24 March 2023 (UTC) 2864:11:31, 23 March 2023 (UTC) 2842:01:37, 23 March 2023 (UTC) 2824:01:29, 23 March 2023 (UTC) 2786:01:19, 18 March 2023 (UTC) 2771:22:23, 17 March 2023 (UTC) 2749:21:18, 17 March 2023 (UTC) 2735:20:56, 17 March 2023 (UTC) 2712:16:57, 17 March 2023 (UTC) 2528:You should be doing this: 2465:Goldschmidt classification 2379:Goldschmidt classification 1585:Bernard_Lewis_bibliography 306: 244:06:13, 22 April 2020 (UTC) 225:00:08, 22 April 2020 (UTC) 184:01:28, 27 March 2020 (UTC) 162:00:08, 27 March 2020 (UTC) 145:03:56, 26 March 2020 (UTC) 131:20:37, 25 March 2020 (UTC) 112:19:50, 25 March 2020 (UTC) 3130:<ref name="foo" /: --> 3040: 2846:Some guidelines, such as 2335:which has the following: 2244:08:31, 26 July 2022 (UTC) 2216:08:27, 26 July 2022 (UTC) 2198:07:44, 26 July 2022 (UTC) 2175:07:06, 26 July 2022 (UTC) 2151:22:12, 24 July 2022 (UTC) 2135:prime minister of Andorra 1758:*'''term''' – description 1463:List layout prose example 624:23:45, 9 March 2020 (UTC) 368: 2812:Help:Interlanguage links 2529: 2459:Laid the foundations of 2373:Laid the foundations of 2123:18:37, 4 June 2022 (UTC) 2106:12:18, 4 June 2022 (UTC) 2065:17:57, 31 May 2022 (UTC) 1805: 1799: 1772:). Finally, guidance in 1762:*'''term''': description 1526:18:35, 4 July 2021 (UTC) 1503:12:18, 4 July 2021 (UTC) 1225:Profs. Jones and Hidalgo 194:SOURCELIST clarification 3073:10:45, 9 May 2023 (UTC) 2941:Article in bad need of 1770:Knowledge's own article 1720:mandatory or optional? 230:They are wrong pls see 3188: 2808:Help:Interwiki linking 2503: 2423: 2087:Proposed clarification 1804:as identical to this: 1764:, is both recognized ( 1699:Steal the Kosher Bacon 1589:Steal the Kosher Bacon 1051: 660: 654: 607: 480: 98:) to extensive (e.g., 2671:I propose 2 changes 598:User:Wikipedian Right 554:Empire State Building 456:Empire State Building 415:Empire State Building 364:List with no content 46:of past discussions. 2739:Thanks, looks good. 2621:Clarification needed 1855:": term; definition" 592:How beautiful it is! 513:Carrère and Hastings 387:Carrère and Hastings 3001:lists, not mangled 2648:Just below section 2480:. New York: Wiley. 2449:Goldschmidt, Victor 2396:. New York: Wiley. 2359:Goldschmidt, Victor 1881:; term : definition 1778:previous discussion 1037:can be abbreviated 570:after World War II. 482:What do you think? 357: 2874:some list articles 2830:or sister projects 1856: 560:World Trade Center 534:Woolworth Building 462:World Trade Center 444:Woolworth Building 427:World Trade Center 403:Woolworth Building 355: 2656:in the section. 2323:I was looking at 2128:Numbering offices 1998:|inline-terms=yes 1968: 1967: 1854: 1718:description lists 1614: 1557: 1452: 1440: 1398: 1386: 967: 955: 919: 907: 883: 871: 847:Have no standard. 735: 723: 612: 611: 605: 576: 575: 544:Chrysler Building 524:Flatiron Building 470: 469: 450:Chrysler Building 438:Flatiron Building 407:Chrysler Building 391:Flatiron Building 86: 85: 58: 57: 52:current talk page 3259: 3242: 3207: 3191: 3156: 3139: 3131: 3097: 3042: 3037: 3024: 3008: 3004: 3000: 2996: 2992: 2984: 2976: 2972: 2962: 2954: 2953: 2743: 2706: 2650:Horizontal lists 2555: 2547: 2543: 2538: 2535:, including the 2534: 2527: 2490: 2463:, including the 2456: 2439: 2436: 2435: 2406: 2377:, including the 2366: 2353: 2349: 2345: 2341: 2309: 2302: 2285: 2267: 2260: 2233: 2186: 2027: 2003: 1999: 1995: 1989: 1985: 1981: 1977: 1973: 1935: 1887: 1882: 1822: 1763: 1759: 1755: 1749: 1746:) and templates 1745: 1741: 1681: 1676: 1652:JohnFromPinckney 1643:MOS:LISTSOFWORKS 1626: 1623: 1617: 1615: 1612: 1579:Tables vs. Lists 1569: 1566: 1560: 1558: 1555: 1453: 1450: 1449: 1447: 1438: 1412: 1399: 1396: 1395: 1393: 1384: 1381: 1375: 1358: 1353: 1333: 1293: 1251: 1177: 1172: 1160: 1143:New Hart's Rules 1101: 1097: 1085: 1048: 1044: 1040: 1010: 1007: 1003: 968: 965: 964: 962: 953: 949: 920: 917: 916: 914: 905: 884: 881: 880: 878: 869: 844: 839: 834: 829: 824: 819: 814: 809: 804: 799: 794: 789: 736: 733: 732: 730: 721: 710: 693: 690:Wikipedian Right 680: 663: 657: 635: 632:Wikipedian Right 616:Wikipedian Right 601: 600: 578: 485: 478: 358: 352: 340: 334: 326: 319: 283: 248:Though also see 242: 239: 223: 176: 153: 122: 82: 60: 59: 37: 36: 30: 3267: 3266: 3262: 3261: 3260: 3258: 3257: 3256: 3133: 3129: 3107: 3053: 3033: 3006: 3002: 2998: 2994: 2986: 2978: 2970: 2963: 2960: 2958: 2951: 2947: 2893:being harmful. 2759:sister projects 2741: 2704: 2700: 2646: 2623: 2572: 2553: 2550: 2549: 2545: 2541: 2536: 2532: 2521: 2487: 2472: 2447: 2437: 2433: 2403: 2388: 2357: 2351: 2347: 2343: 2339: 2321: 2300: 2298: 2283: 2258: 2256: 2252: 2227: 2180: 2130: 2072: 2053: 2021: 2001: 1993: 1987: 1983: 1979: 1964: 1885: 1880: 1820: 1809: 1808: 1803: 1802: 1753: 1747: 1743: 1739: 1714: 1697:Thank you all! 1679: 1621: 1618: 1611: 1606: 1604: 1581: 1564: 1561: 1554: 1549: 1547: 1493: 1465: 1443: 1441: 1437: 1406: 1389: 1387: 1383: 1379: 1373: 1369: 1356: 1347: 1166: 1091: 1005: 1001: 998: 958: 956: 952: 943: 910: 908: 904: 874: 872: 868: 865: 746: 726: 724: 720: 687: 629: 608: 595: 583: 473: 429:towers (1973). 338: 332: 330: 329: 322: 315: 311: 301: 295: 262:WP:Common sense 240: 235: 207: 196: 174: 151: 129: 120: 91: 78: 34: 26: 25: 24: 12: 11: 5: 3265: 3263: 3255: 3254: 3253: 3252: 3251: 3250: 3249: 3248: 3247: 3246: 3106: 3103: 3102: 3101: 3052: 3049: 3048: 3047: 2949: 2946: 2939: 2938: 2937: 2936: 2935: 2934: 2933: 2932: 2931: 2930: 2929: 2928: 2927: 2926: 2925: 2826: 2788: 2699: 2696: 2682: 2680: 2679: 2676: 2645: 2642: 2622: 2619: 2591: 2590: 2587: 2571: 2570:Prose vs. List 2568: 2567: 2566: 2530: 2502: 2501: 2500: 2499: 2485: 2470: 2469: 2468: 2422: 2421: 2420: 2419: 2408: 2407: 2401: 2385: 2384: 2383: 2382: 2368: 2367: 2350: 2346: 2342: 2320: 2317: 2316: 2315: 2314: 2313: 2251: 2248: 2247: 2246: 2203: 2202: 2201: 2200: 2162: 2158: 2129: 2126: 2094: 2093: 2089: 2088: 2071: 2068: 2052: 2049: 2048: 2047: 1966: 1965: 1962: 1960: 1959: 1958: 1952: 1943: 1942: 1939: 1923: 1922: 1921: 1920: 1919: 1918: 1917: 1916: 1851: 1834: 1833: 1806: 1800: 1792: 1713: 1710: 1695: 1694: 1693: 1692: 1675:|author-mask=2 1646: 1639: 1636: 1630: 1607: 1580: 1577: 1576: 1575: 1574: 1573: 1550: 1538:Notable people 1529: 1528: 1492: 1489: 1464: 1461: 1460: 1459: 1458: 1457: 1424:207.161.86.162 1368: 1365: 1364: 1363: 1341: 1340: 1339: 1338: 1337: 1306:207.161.86.162 1265: 1264: 1263: 1262: 1261: 1260: 1259: 1258: 1257: 1256: 1255: 1183:207.161.86.162 1179: 1121:207.161.86.162 1114: 1104:207.161.86.162 1053:207.161.86.162 1017: 992: 974: 973: 972: 925: 924: 896: 895: 864: 863: 848: 845: 840: 835: 830: 825: 820: 815: 810: 805: 800: 795: 790: 785: 782: 779: 776: 773: 770: 766: 745: 742: 741: 740: 715: 714: 685: 665: 643: 610: 609: 594: 588: 585: 584: 581: 574: 573: 572: 571: 557: 551: 541: 531: 528:Madison Square 518: 509:Stanford White 490: 489: 472: 468: 467: 466: 465: 459: 453: 447: 441: 430: 395:Madison Square 383:Stanford White 366: 365: 362: 328: 327: 320: 312: 307: 300: 297: 294: 291: 290: 289: 288: 287: 259: 255: 195: 192: 191: 190: 189: 188: 187: 186: 133: 125: 90: 87: 84: 83: 76: 71: 66: 56: 55: 38: 27: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3264: 3245: 3240: 3237: 3234: 3233: 3226: 3225: 3224: 3220: 3216: 3212: 3211: 3210: 3205: 3202: 3199: 3198: 3190: 3186:Yeah, that's 3185: 3184: 3183: 3179: 3175: 3171: 3170:this approach 3167: 3166: 3161: 3160: 3159: 3154: 3151: 3148: 3147: 3137: 3127: 3126: 3125: 3124: 3120: 3116: 3111: 3104: 3100: 3095: 3092: 3089: 3088: 3081: 3077: 3076: 3075: 3074: 3070: 3066: 3062: 3058: 3050: 3046: 3043: 3038: 3036: 3030: 3029: 3028: 3027: 3022: 3019: 3016: 3015: 2990: 2982: 2968: 2957: 2944: 2940: 2924: 2920: 2916: 2911: 2906: 2905: 2904: 2900: 2896: 2892: 2888: 2884: 2879: 2875: 2871: 2867: 2866: 2865: 2861: 2857: 2853: 2849: 2845: 2844: 2843: 2839: 2835: 2831: 2827: 2825: 2821: 2817: 2813: 2809: 2805: 2801: 2799: 2793: 2789: 2787: 2783: 2779: 2774: 2773: 2772: 2768: 2764: 2760: 2756: 2752: 2751: 2750: 2747: 2744: 2738: 2737: 2736: 2732: 2728: 2724: 2720: 2719:H:FOREIGNLINK 2716: 2715: 2714: 2713: 2710: 2707: 2697: 2695: 2694: 2690: 2686: 2685:108.36.229.19 2677: 2674: 2673: 2672: 2669: 2665: 2661: 2657: 2655: 2651: 2641: 2640: 2636: 2632: 2628: 2620: 2618: 2617: 2613: 2609: 2604: 2601: 2597: 2588: 2585: 2584: 2583: 2581: 2576: 2569: 2565: 2561: 2557: 2525: 2520: 2519: 2518: 2517: 2513: 2509: 2497: 2492: 2491: 2488: 2486:9780471256656 2483: 2479: 2475: 2474:Faure, Gunter 2471: 2466: 2462: 2458: 2457: 2454: 2451:(1923–1938). 2450: 2446: 2445: 2443: 2441: 2428: 2427:MOS:INDENTMIX 2417: 2412: 2411: 2410: 2409: 2404: 2402:9780471256656 2399: 2395: 2391: 2390:Faure, Gunter 2387: 2386: 2380: 2376: 2372: 2371: 2370: 2369: 2364: 2361:(1923–1938). 2360: 2356: 2355: 2354: 2336: 2334: 2330: 2326: 2318: 2312: 2308: 2307: 2303: 2296: 2295: 2294: 2290: 2286: 2278: 2273: 2272: 2271: 2270: 2266: 2265: 2261: 2249: 2245: 2241: 2237: 2231: 2224: 2220: 2219: 2218: 2217: 2213: 2209: 2199: 2195: 2191: 2184: 2178: 2177: 2176: 2172: 2168: 2163: 2159: 2155: 2154: 2153: 2152: 2148: 2144: 2140: 2136: 2127: 2125: 2124: 2120: 2116: 2112: 2108: 2107: 2103: 2099: 2091: 2090: 2086: 2085: 2084: 2082: 2077: 2076:WP:LISTVERIFY 2069: 2067: 2066: 2062: 2058: 2050: 2046: 2042: 2038: 2034: 2031: 2025: 2020: 2019: 2018: 2017: 2013: 2009: 2008: 1992: 1961: 1956: 1953: 1950: 1947: 1946: 1945: 1944: 1940: 1937: 1936: 1933: 1931: 1927: 1915: 1911: 1907: 1903: 1899: 1898: 1897: 1893: 1889: 1878: 1877: 1876: 1872: 1868: 1864: 1860: 1852: 1850: 1846: 1842: 1838: 1837: 1836: 1835: 1832: 1828: 1824: 1818:violation. -- 1817: 1813: 1797: 1793: 1791: 1787: 1783: 1779: 1775: 1771: 1767: 1752: 1737: 1734: 1733: 1732: 1731: 1727: 1723: 1719: 1711: 1709: 1708: 1704: 1700: 1691: 1687: 1683: 1672: 1668: 1667: 1666: 1663: 1661: 1657: 1653: 1647: 1644: 1640: 1634: 1631: 1629: 1624: 1616: 1610: 1601: 1600: 1599: 1598: 1594: 1590: 1586: 1578: 1572: 1567: 1559: 1553: 1545: 1541: 1539: 1533: 1532: 1531: 1530: 1527: 1523: 1519: 1515: 1511: 1507: 1506: 1505: 1504: 1501: 1500: 1490: 1488: 1487: 1483: 1479: 1474: 1470: 1462: 1456: 1448: 1446: 1435: 1434: 1433: 1429: 1425: 1421: 1417: 1410: 1405: 1404: 1403: 1402: 1394: 1392: 1378: 1366: 1362: 1359: 1351: 1345: 1344:10, 11, or 15 1342: 1336: 1331: 1328: 1325: 1324: 1317: 1316: 1315: 1311: 1307: 1303: 1299: 1298: 1296: 1291: 1288: 1285: 1284: 1277: 1273: 1269: 1266: 1254: 1249: 1246: 1243: 1242: 1234: 1230: 1226: 1222: 1218: 1214: 1210: 1206: 1202: 1198: 1194: 1193: 1192: 1188: 1184: 1180: 1170: 1165: 1164: 1163: 1158: 1155: 1152: 1151: 1144: 1140: 1136: 1132: 1131: 1130: 1126: 1122: 1118: 1115: 1113: 1109: 1105: 1095: 1090: 1089: 1088: 1083: 1080: 1077: 1076: 1069: 1064: 1063: 1062: 1058: 1054: 1050: 1036: 1029: 1025: 1021: 1018: 1016: 1013: 1009: 996: 993: 991: 987: 983: 978: 975: 971: 963: 961: 947: 942: 941: 940: 936: 932: 927: 926: 923: 915: 913: 902: 898: 897: 893: 890: 889: 888: 887: 879: 877: 861: 857: 853: 849: 846: 841: 836: 831: 826: 821: 816: 811: 806: 801: 796: 791: 786: 783: 780: 777: 774: 771: 768: 767: 765: 763: 760: 757: 754: 751: 743: 739: 731: 729: 717: 716: 713: 709: 708: 704: 703: 697: 691: 686: 684: 683: 678: 675: 672: 671: 662: 656: 650: 648: 641: 633: 628: 627: 626: 625: 621: 617: 606: 604: 599: 593: 587: 586: 580: 579: 569: 565: 561: 558: 555: 552: 549: 545: 542: 539: 535: 532: 529: 525: 522: 521: 520: 516: 514: 510: 506: 500: 496: 492: 491: 487: 486: 483: 479: 477: 463: 460: 457: 454: 451: 448: 445: 442: 439: 436: 435: 434: 431: 428: 424: 420: 416: 412: 408: 404: 400: 396: 392: 388: 384: 380: 376: 372: 367: 363: 360: 359: 353: 350: 344: 337: 325: 321: 318: 314: 313: 310: 305: 298: 292: 286: 281: 278: 275: 274: 267: 263: 257: 253: 251: 247: 246: 245: 238: 233: 232:WP:LISTVERIFY 229: 228: 227: 226: 222: 221: 217: 216: 212: 211: 205: 201: 200:WP:SOURCELIST 193: 185: 181: 177: 169: 165: 164: 163: 159: 155: 148: 147: 146: 142: 138: 134: 132: 128: 124: 123: 116: 115: 114: 113: 109: 105: 101: 97: 88: 81: 77: 75: 72: 70: 67: 65: 62: 61: 53: 49: 45: 44: 39: 32: 31: 23: 19: 3231: 3196: 3164: 3145: 3108: 3086: 3054: 3034: 3013: 2981:block indent 2964: 2909: 2890: 2873: 2829: 2797: 2754: 2701: 2683:Objections? 2681: 2670: 2666: 2662: 2658: 2653: 2647: 2624: 2605: 2599: 2596:WP:SEAOFBLUE 2592: 2577: 2573: 2504: 2495: 2477: 2461:geochemistry 2452: 2424: 2415: 2393: 2375:geochemistry 2362: 2338: 2322: 2305: 2276: 2263: 2253: 2222: 2204: 2138: 2134: 2131: 2110: 2109: 2095: 2073: 2054: 2005: 2002:{{glossary}} 1969: 1954: 1948: 1929: 1925: 1924: 1858: 1811: 1796:WP:RFCBEFORE 1735: 1715: 1696: 1649: 1608: 1582: 1551: 1537: 1498: 1494: 1478:HumanxAnthro 1469:this section 1466: 1444: 1390: 1370: 1343: 1322: 1301: 1282: 1271: 1267: 1240: 1232: 1228: 1224: 1220: 1216: 1212: 1208: 1204: 1200: 1196: 1149: 1142: 1139:The Guardian 1138: 1074: 1068:bikeshedding 1034: 1032: 1019: 994: 976: 959: 911: 891: 875: 866: 860:Reference(s) 747: 727: 706: 701: 669: 651: 638: 613: 590: 564:Raymond Hood 538:Cass Gilbert 517: 502: 494: 481: 471: 432: 419:Raymond Hood 399:Cass Gilbert 370: 331: 324:MOS:USEPROSE 302: 272: 219: 214: 209: 197: 168:WP:SEAOFBLUE 118: 92: 79: 47: 41: 3232:SMcCandlish 3197:SMcCandlish 3165:SMcCandlish 3162:Thank you, 3146:SMcCandlish 3087:SMcCandlish 3014:SMcCandlish 2975:<dd: --> 2965:Please see 2915:Magnolia677 2856:Magnolia677 2792:Magnolia677 2763:Magnolia677 2742:Doug Weller 2705:Doug Weller 2631:Magnolia677 2167:Herostratus 2037:fgnievinski 1976:<dd: --> 1972:<dt: --> 1906:fgnievinski 1867:fgnievinski 1841:fgnievinski 1782:fgnievinski 1722:fgnievinski 1622:talk to me! 1565:talk to me! 1416:SMcCandlish 1350:ref heading 1323:SMcCandlish 1283:SMcCandlish 1241:SMcCandlish 1221:Prof. Jones 1169:SMcCandlish 1150:SMcCandlish 1117:SMcCandlish 1094:SMcCandlish 1075:SMcCandlish 1006:andersnatch 702:Senator2029 696:overlinking 670:SMcCandlish 568:Lever House 499:skyscrapers 423:Lever House 375:skyscrapers 273:SMcCandlish 102:). Thanks. 40:This is an 3132:format or 2989:blockquote 2895:Huggums537 2883:WP:ELMAYBE 2878:WP:ELMAYBE 2852:WP:ELMAYBE 2834:Huggums537 2816:Huggums537 2757:topics or 2301:The Banner 2277:as long as 2259:The Banner 2096:Thoughts? 1938:Displayed 1904:. Thanks! 1816:WP:LISTGAP 1774:MOS:NOBOLD 1473:Pace Foods 1420:MOS:POINTS 1217:references 1209:references 1135:MOS:ENGVAR 1030:provides: 1028:MOS:POINTS 1024:MOS:ENGVAR 856:References 505:Beaux-Arts 413:; and the 379:Beaux-Arts 347:See also: 100:Novo Mesto 2943:MOS:DLIST 2887:WP:MOSSIS 2870:WP:MOSSIS 2608:Curran919 2580:MOS:PROSE 2467:elements. 2381:elements. 2230:Tartan357 2081:WP:MINREF 2070:List refs 2057:Lalaithan 1941:Wikitext 1766:MOS:GLOSS 1357:Anne drew 1276:WP:BOLDly 1211:), while 1205:reference 1002:truthious 982:Normal Op 852:Reference 647:Chemistry 317:MOS:PROSE 309:Shortcuts 266:WP:POINTy 96:Dobrovnik 80:Archive 8 74:Archive 7 69:Archive 6 64:Archive 5 3189:no bueno 3065:Primefac 3035:Remsense 2973:(= HTML 2910:Survivor 2778:Mburrell 2727:Mburrell 2476:(1977). 2425:However 2392:(1977). 2115:Mburrell 1991:glossary 1736:Optional 1133:No, per 867:Cheers, 548:Art Deco 411:Art Deco 20:‎ | 3057:WP:FRAT 2945:cleanup 2891:without 2848:WP:CCSG 2755:notable 2524:Umimmak 2508:Umimmak 2236:GoodDay 2208:Mewulwe 2190:GoodDay 2183:Mewulwe 2143:GoodDay 2111:Approve 1613:kriegls 1556:kriegls 1518:Colin M 1367:Outcome 1026:issue? 1020:Comment 843:Ref(s). 784:Ref(s). 582:Related 121:P 1 9 9 43:archive 2794:, per 2556:rose64 2325:WP:BIB 2098:Zindor 1955:Term 2 1949:Term 1 1888:rose64 1823:rose64 1682:rose64 1035:Doctor 901:WP:FLC 838:Ref(s) 781:Ref(s) 707:❮talk❯ 464:(1973) 458:(1931) 452:(1929) 446:(1913) 440:(1902) 421:, and 154:rose64 137:Doremo 104:Doremo 3215:Hoary 3174:Hoary 3172:. -- 3115:Hoary 3005:with 2997:with 2654:there 2600:could 2429:says 2179:Well 1930:style 1660:edits 1635:maybe 1233:Profs 1229:Prof. 1213:refs. 1176:Refs. 1100:Refs. 858:, or 833:Refs. 828:Refs. 778:Refs. 361:Prose 336:prose 22:Lists 16:< 3219:talk 3178:talk 3119:talk 3110:Here 3069:talk 3061:here 2919:talk 2899:talk 2885:and 2860:talk 2838:talk 2820:talk 2782:talk 2767:talk 2746:talk 2731:talk 2709:talk 2689:talk 2635:talk 2612:talk 2560:talk 2558:🌹 ( 2512:talk 2482:ISBN 2431:But 2398:ISBN 2306:talk 2284:asem 2264:talk 2240:talk 2212:talk 2194:talk 2171:talk 2147:talk 2119:talk 2102:talk 2061:talk 2041:talk 2012:talk 1974:and 1910:talk 1892:talk 1890:🌹 ( 1883:. -- 1871:talk 1859:term 1845:talk 1827:talk 1825:🌹 ( 1812:does 1786:talk 1751:term 1742:and 1726:talk 1703:talk 1686:talk 1684:🌹 ( 1656:talk 1593:talk 1522:talk 1482:talk 1445:Sdkb 1439:{{u| 1428:talk 1409:Sdkb 1391:Sdkb 1385:{{u| 1377:refh 1310:talk 1223:and 1201:ref. 1187:talk 1125:talk 1108:talk 1057:talk 986:talk 960:Sdkb 954:{{u| 946:Izno 935:talk 931:Izno 912:Sdkb 906:{{u| 876:Sdkb 870:{{u| 823:Refs 818:Refs 813:Ref. 808:Ref. 803:Ref. 775:Refs 772:Ref. 728:Sdkb 722:{{u| 658:and 620:talk 566:and 511:and 493:The 385:and 369:The 343:stub 254:able 250:WP:V 237:Moxy 215:uidh 204:WP:V 202:and 175:asem 158:talk 156:🌹 ( 141:talk 108:talk 3241:😼 3206:😼 3155:😼 3136:sfn 3096:😼 3023:😼 2956:FYI 2810:or 2554:Red 2223:all 2139:all 2024:Sbb 2007:sbb 1886:Red 1865:. 1821:Red 1760:or 1680:Red 1499:Jay 1332:😼 1292:😼 1250:😼 1207:or 1159:😼 1084:😼 1045:or 1043:Dr. 1039:Dr. 1012:|℡| 977:15. 798:Ref 793:Ref 788:Ref 769:Ref 679:😼 661:con 655:pro 401:'s 282:😼 234:.-- 152:Red 3229:— 3221:) 3194:— 3180:) 3143:— 3138:}} 3134:{{ 3121:) 3084:— 3071:) 3063:. 3011:— 2991:}} 2987:{{ 2983:}} 2979:{{ 2959:– 2921:) 2901:) 2862:) 2840:) 2822:) 2800:). 2784:) 2769:) 2733:) 2691:) 2637:) 2614:) 2562:) 2548:. 2546:'' 2542:'' 2514:) 2291:) 2280:-- 2242:) 2214:) 2196:) 2173:) 2149:) 2121:) 2104:) 2063:) 2043:) 2014:) 1994:}} 1988:{{ 1912:) 1894:) 1873:) 1847:) 1829:) 1788:) 1780:. 1754:}} 1748:{{ 1728:) 1705:) 1688:) 1658:/ 1650:— 1595:) 1546:. 1524:) 1484:) 1451:}} 1430:) 1422:. 1397:}} 1380:}} 1374:{{ 1352:}} 1348:{{ 1320:— 1312:) 1280:— 1268:11 1238:— 1197:no 1189:) 1147:— 1127:) 1119:? 1110:) 1072:— 1070:. 1059:) 1047:Dr 1004:𝔹 1000:‿Ꞅ 995:12 988:) 966:}} 937:) 929:-- 918:}} 882:}} 854:, 734:}} 667:— 642:do 622:) 614:— 596:— 515:. 501:. 474:— 397:; 339:}} 333:{{ 270:— 268:. 258:ed 241:🍁 182:) 171:-- 160:) 143:) 110:) 3239:¢ 3236:☏ 3217:( 3204:¢ 3201:☏ 3176:( 3153:¢ 3150:☏ 3117:( 3094:¢ 3091:☏ 3067:( 3041:聊 3021:¢ 3018:☏ 3007:: 3003:* 2999:: 2995:; 2971:: 2917:( 2897:( 2858:( 2836:( 2818:( 2790:@ 2780:( 2765:( 2729:( 2687:( 2633:( 2610:( 2537:] 2533:] 2526:: 2522:@ 2510:( 2498:. 2489:. 2455:. 2438:N 2418:. 2405:. 2365:. 2289:t 2287:( 2282:M 2238:( 2232:: 2228:@ 2210:( 2192:( 2185:: 2181:@ 2169:( 2145:( 2117:( 2100:( 2059:( 2039:( 2026:: 2022:@ 2010:( 1984:: 1982:/ 1980:; 1908:( 1869:( 1843:( 1784:( 1744:: 1740:; 1724:( 1701:( 1662:) 1654:( 1625:) 1619:( 1609:D 1591:( 1568:) 1562:( 1552:D 1520:( 1480:( 1426:( 1411:: 1407:@ 1330:¢ 1327:☏ 1308:( 1302:s 1290:¢ 1287:☏ 1272:s 1248:¢ 1245:☏ 1185:( 1174:" 1171:: 1167:@ 1157:¢ 1154:☏ 1123:( 1106:( 1096:: 1092:@ 1082:¢ 1079:☏ 1055:( 1008:͡ 984:( 948:: 944:@ 933:( 862:. 762:5 759:4 756:3 753:2 750:1 692:: 688:@ 677:¢ 674:☏ 634:: 630:@ 618:( 550:; 540:; 530:; 351:. 280:¢ 277:☏ 220:e 210:b 180:t 178:( 173:M 139:( 127:✉ 106:( 54:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Knowledge

talk:Manual of Style/Lists/Archive 8 - Knowledge

Index