This page falls within the scope of the Wikipedia:Manual of Style, a collaborative effort focused on enhancing clarity, consistency, and cohesiveness across the Manual of Style (MoS) guidelines by addressing inconsistencies, refining language, and integrating guidance effectively.Manual of StyleWikipedia:WikiProject Manual of StyleTemplate:WikiProject Manual of StyleManual of Style
This page may fall under the contentious topics procedure and be given additional attention, as it may be closely associated to the article titles policy and capitalisation. Both areas are subjects of debate. Contributors are urged to review the awareness criteria carefully and exercise caution when editing.
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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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:
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
