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 falls under the contentious topics procedure and is given additional attention, as it closely associated to the English Wikipedia Manual of Style, and the article titles policy. Both areas are subjects of debate. Contributors are urged to review the awareness criteria carefully and exercise caution when editing.
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be auto-archived by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 4.
Coverage/treatment of a Subject by Wikipedia
If an article's coverage in Wikipedia becomes a topic of media attention (say it is very short / long / negative / laudatory, and this is described in some punditry or RS as having a significant impact on the subject or a specific event related to it): to what extent should that be mentioned in the article?
A recent example is the ADL article, which at one point had a long section with 4 subsections on every step of the RSP reassessment, discussion closure, media coverage, response, and meta-response. At that point editors looking at the size of the subsection added mention of it to the lede. The possibilities for recursion are endless. – SJ +17:28, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Notable"
A number of Wikipedia pages include lists of article links with section headings reading "Notable [stuff]". I have generally removed these as an ASR issue, because "notable" is a Wikipedia-internal term of art, and is being used in that specific sense (rather than in the general dictionary-definition sense). However, as far as I can tell, this specific usage has never been discussed here. I think we should discourage such usage of "notable" in articles; if the list content is being restricted to notable entries due to a guideline such as WP:LISTPEOPLE, this can be noted in a hidden note at the top of the list, and it doesn't conflate the Wikipedia concept of notability with the word's casual use as a synonym for noteworthy or interesting. Chubbles (talk) 04:35, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm wondering if language to that effect should be added to this guideline. Perhaps something like: List articles should not be sectioned or led by the phrase "notable [items]", nor should text explaining that the list is limited to notable items or items with Wikipedia entries be present at the top of the list. Notable is a specific Wikipedia term of art which, in this context, is used differently than its general meaning of "interesting or noteworthy in some way". If a list's content is being restricted to notable entries due to a guideline such as WP:LISTPEOPLE, this can be mentioned in a hidden note at the top of the list, or an alternate phrase such as "noted [items]" can be used. I imagine this would need to be implemented as prelude to any mass change, especially one that would be tool-assisted; there are many pages that use this particular type of self-reference. Chubbles (talk) 05:56, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sledgehammer for a walnut. If you want to say something about noted being the right word instead of notable (in any context, not just lists), maybe. There's no need for all that verbiage, and you absolutely should abandon right now any notion of going on a mass fixit campaign. This is simply not important enough, and you'll piss people off. EEng10:09, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What other terms? We have WP:NOTACATALOG#6, so without some limitations we're going to end up in a catalog such as list of every nuts and bolts in Hillman Solutions catalog, or every releases of some hole in the wall record label, or every tenant of a local office building. Graywalls (talk) 20:17, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've used "open image to see..." (in Ernest Granville Booth) (and wrapped it in {{self reference}}). This is in a slightly different context, though, as I wanted to make it clear that the thumbnail was a crop of a larger image.
For normal thumbnails, I think that selecting an image to expand it is an expected behavior when a reader is confronted by a tiny image, and the "click to expand" should just be removed ("Wikipedia is not a basic UI tutorial"?). And there's usually a clicky-expandy icon provided by default in image captions (not on mobile devices, it appears). NapoliRoma (talk) 19:01, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
