Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (headings)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives
Archive 1

[edit] Why use second level headings???

I noted in the manual of style that it states you begin with "==" as the first level of headings. Why is this done instead of starting with "=" which is the top level? It seems redundant to me that we even have this first level if the manual of style directs us all to start at the second level. Enigmatical 23:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The article title is at h1 or "=". Thus the first heading starts at h2, "==". Dysprosia 11:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Then why does "=" map to h1 instead of h2? It basically means that we will never use "=" EVER and thus it seems a complete waste, causing an additional 2 characters per heading for absolutely no reason. Enigmatical 22:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

It is still used, just not for mainspace articles. I don't have a link to an example, but I have seen it used in the Talk pages of some templates, where the Talk page is divided into "=Usage=" and "=Discussion=", so that when a person clicks on the "+" to start a new discussion section, it gets put under the super-section "=Discussion=". It also of course is bigger, which someone might want for some purpose; there are undoubtedly uses that aren't thought of in this discussion here which may be used now or in the future. It might, for example, diminish errors to have sections require two characters "==" rather than one "=" for accidents. —Centrx→talk • 23:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Questions in headings

Do we discourage headings that ask a question? I'd thought we did, but I can't find anyhting in the MOS about it. If not, perhaps we should. Sections headed by questions are often used to argue a point. -Will Beback 00:13, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Using title case in this title

Using sentance case in titles looks ugly, however I don't think I can influence that. But what makes you write the title "Manual of Style" in title case then?

Using title case (= capitalizing almost every word) in headings merely because it is a heading looks ugly, destroys valuable information about names (proper nouns) that might occur as part of headings, and is not common practice among many English publishers. Therefore, Wikipedia does not do it. However, "Manual of Style" is a proper noun here, the name of a document called "Manual of Style" (like the name of a movie or book), and therefore correctly capitalized in a sentence case heading. This has nothing to do with the use of title case as an additional form of emphasis for section headings (which are generally not proper nouns). Capitalizing a phrase because it is the name of an entity is ok. Capitalizing something because it is a heading of an article or section is not ok. For example "Recurring themes in discussions on the Manual of Style" is correct use of sentence case, involving the correctly capitalized proper noun "Manual of Style". Markus Kuhn 18:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Too strong

This manual says:

Capitalize the first letter of the first word and any proper nouns in headings, but leave the rest lower case.

Everybody knows I'm one of the most active enforcers of this doctrine. But I think that like a number of other things in Wikipedia's style manuals, it's too strong. It should say something to the general effect of

In headings, capitalize the first letter of the first word and any proper nouns or other words for which there is specific reason to capitalize, but leave the rest lower case.

The style manuals say "only" too often. Michael Hardy 19:57, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Can you give some examples for other reasons? Abbreviations come to mind. Anything else? If people find that the current phrasing is not easy enough to understand, we could also add a sentence that clarifies what we really want: "In other words, use the same rules for capitalization in headings that you would apply in normal sentences." Markus Kuhn 21:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Link vs Links

What is the current school of thought about replacing External links with External link when only one link is present? --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 01:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Pointless, IMO. There's nothing wrong with it. older ≠ wiser 01:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep as "links" per (1) so-called Eventualism or the like; and/or (2) it only takes making one link into two to mean the section's title should use "links" regardless of how many more links are added thereafter. Regards, David Kernow (talk) 23:57, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trivia sections

I come across many WP articles with sections headed "Trivia". Most often, the section includes references to the article's subject in literature or popular culture. Occasionally, the section is used for miscellaneous interesting facts that for some reason are not included other sections. In my opinion, a "Trivia" section is not encyclopedic. Usually, I either change the title to something more descriptive and appropriate or, less often, eliminate the section altogether and work its contents into other sections of the article. I think it would be helpful to have a guideline on this. What do others think? Finell (Talk) 07:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Trivia and Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles. —Centrx→talk • 07:10, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

If nothing else, I rename the section "Miscellany" unless the contents do seem more trivial (inconsequential, frivolous, petty or the like) than disconnected/isolated "factoids". When they're the latter, they usually seem fit to convert into bullet points. I agree that a "Trivia" section is not encyclopedic. Regards, David Kernow (talk) 07:30, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Capitalization

I believe that in an encyclopedia especially, proper American grammer should be used. As everyone should know, a Title is always capitalized. Therefore, I believe every single title on every single page should have proper grammer, not the current wikipedia grammer.--Golich17 20:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Grammar and style are not the same thing. What you are talking about is Wikipedia style—there is no such thing as Wikipedia grammar. —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 20:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe, as an international collaborative project, Wikipedia should carefully avoid those American typographic aberrations that feel particularly cruel, unusual and impractical to the rest of the English-reading world. The top two are the so-called "title case" (capitalization of most words in headings) and the habit of moving punctuation inside quotation marks where the punctuation is not part of the quotation. Both habits simply destroy valuable information, have no practical advantage, and have never been an element of English grammar. Markus Kuhn 23:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

They aren't necessarily proper grammar in America either. —Centrx→talk • 10:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I've written for academic journals and newspapers, have published a book, and have worked with over 100 editors over the last 25 years. In all of those works, editors require that titles be capitalized. I don't have Strunk & White in front of me, but I believe it says the same thing. So why does Wikipedia use such an oddball rule about title capitalization? The Illuminated Master of USEBACA 20:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

There is discussion about this in the archives here and at the main Manual of Style page. One line that caught my eye is "Title case is a typographic fashion that is not very fashionable outside the United States." That is: This style is peculiar to the twentieth-century United States. Strunk & White doesn't say anything about this, and neither does the Chicago Manual of Style appear to, though the OED uniformly lists books in sentence case. I don't see any reason why title case should be used; it is an ugly monstrosity, certain publisher's preferences notwithstanding. —Centrx→talk • 01:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

The use of capital letters for headings is commonplace. How on earth can a few uninformed individuals change a standard practice taught to most third grade elementary students? It appears, for example, that Centrx thinks it is "ugly" and that, amazingly is his reason for not liking it. ???????????? 14thArmored 15:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Both capitalization styles are commonplace. Go to the Google News front page, and you will see both used by major publications. Encyclopaedia Britannica (at least the online version) uses the same sentence-style capitalization as Wikipedia. As Centrx said, this has already been discussed in the archives and elsewhere for the past however many years. Wikipedia has chosen one style and stuck with it. -SpuriousQ (talk) 23:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

At the newspaper I edit, sentence case is specifically used in headlines, article subheadings, decks, breakout quotes, informational graphics and all other typographical elements. It's hardly universal to capitalize everything, and to my eye, it's neither pretty nor helpful. The presence of a capital letter should tell readers something - by capitalizing everything, we dilute that message. FCYTravis 21:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Please note that an encyclopeia is not a newspaper, so your example is irrelevant. The Chicago Manual of Style capitalizes the first letter of each primary word in its section headings, as does the Encyclopedia Britannica. So tell me again how Wikipedia should not be following the same rules? 14thArmored 21:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Does the Chicago Manual of Style address webpage formatting...? Just wondering, David Kernow (talk) 21:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

As a purely practical matter, sentence case is what our 1,500,000 articles currently use. Let's not change this standard on a whim, or we'll have a mess of conflicting capitalisations between and even within articles. And yes, I prefer sentence case as an aesthetical matter. Sandstein 21:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I support continuing the use of the sentence case. It has served Wikipedia well over the years, and changing Wikipedia style so dramatically at this point would require an enormous amount of work to change the titles of pretty much every article here, a job that I'm emphatically not volunteering for. I think that the sentence case is rather elegant, and like the Encylopedia Britannica, Wikipedia can set a consistent style for all articles- there's no reason that we have to change to their manual of style instead of continuing to use our own. -FisherQueen (Talk) 22:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed - we're free to adopt our own style as long as it's consistent and consistently enforced. There may be some things we should examine changing and some things we should have done differently. This is not one of them. It's purely an issue of style and aesthetics; we've made our choice and there's no reason to expend the *massive* amount of effort necessary to change it. --ElKevbo 01:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] For biographies of authors/scholars: "Books", "Publications" or "Bibliography"?

What would be the best heading for the list of books a subject has written/edited/published? I was editing a biographical article for wikification, and certain of my edits were consecutively reverted: [1] [2]. I think that "Bibliography" (with the shortest, simplest sub-headings possible for languages) is the most appropriate language, but clearly the creator of the article (and an anonymous editor that might be him accidentally signed out) disagrees. The topic was not brought up for discussion or explains in the edit summary, so I don't know why.

Thought? LeaHazel : talk : contribs 16:37, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Bibliography is the standard, correct term. —Centrx→talk • 06:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. LeaHazel : talk : contribs 17:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rhetorical questions in headers

Should we avoid rhetorical questions in headers? For an example see Y2K. Any opinions? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 03:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

In general at least, yes. Headers should be straight descriptions. However, in some cases as in this one it may for the moment be difficult to come up with an appropriately descriptive header, and the rhetorical question at least conveys the idea. —Centrx→talk • 08:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Italicization of works of art in section headings

I recently made some edits to the Garamond page that were later edited back by another user. If you go to the Contemporary use of Garamond types section, you'll see that the second sub-section there discusses the font's use in the hardcover editions of the Harry Potter novels. Originally, I italicized “Harry Potter” in the sub-section header (per WP:MOS-T) because it is the title of a work of art (series of novels). My edits were changed back by GearedBull, and his edit summary included this text: "...removed italicization of Harry Potter, does not meet wiki MOS criteria for use of italics." I’ve been reading through the numerous MOS pages on sections and section headings, and I haven’t found any instances where it says not to italicize the titles of works of art in section titles. Is there a definitive Wikipedia yes-or-no guideline for this? —BrOnXbOmBr21 11:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ampersands

What is the deal with totally discouraging "&" ? It really isn't all that 'special' a character, and makes for a very tidy connection between two summed up words. MadMaxDog 13:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The ampersand is special in that it is neither letter nor punctuation. It is a stylized glyph for writing the Latin word "et". Many people feel that it is not a valid element of English grammar and therefore avoid using it in normal sentences and headings and restrict its use to abbreviations (&c., &al.) and some proper nouns (e.g., company names). I tend to agree. (If you prefer ideographic writing systems that almost have a special symbol for each word, try Written Chinese or Blissymbols.) Markus Kuhn 13:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Conflict with Biography on section heading sequence

The Biography template puts 'See also' just before 'External links', which is in conflict with this section. I think the Biography template should be changed to be in sync. See: Template:Biography and: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings)#Standard appendices Flatterworld 21:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Please note that "It is okay to change the sequence of these appendices...." --ElKevbo 01:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Long headings that summarize the contents of each section

There has been some talk page debate about the heading style in Glucokinase. What do you think? Should the manual of style say something about it? I'm specifically looking at this version: [3]. --Itub 11:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Use of bold and italics in headings

I propose an addition to this guideline along the lines of "Don't use bold or italic markup in a heading unless you just absolutely have to." Sometimes I come across headings with bold or italic (or both) markup, such as "== '''Discography''' ==". I've always removed these, assuming they were against the MOS, but I was reading it today was surprised to see no prohibition against this markup.

I personally think it's a good idea to insert something of this nature into the MOS, if only to make things look uniform and nicer. I think there should be exceptions, though, in the case of media titles or whatnot, so editors could still make headings like, say, "== Public reaction to ''Star Wars'' ==".

Comments? --Wayne Miller 20:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. —Centrx→talk • 05:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Since there's no objections, I've gone ahead and made the change: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings)#Bold and italic text. --Wayne Miller 21:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Redundant info

If an article is about a fictional character, and that fact is stated in the very first sentence of the article, is it appropriate to title the first section "==Fictional character biography==" ? It seems not only redundant, but like we're treating the reader as a dummy. Dreadlocke ☥ 18:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify, there's no other biographical material in the article that might confuse the reader, it's all about the fictional character. Dreadlocke ☥ 18:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Biography" as headings

I am becoming increasing annoyed at the use of "biography" as a heading in an article, because of the redundancy it lends to the article, resulting in poor prose. Just as how it has been agreed upon that it's redundant to have a heading called "About the record" in an article about a song (since the entire article is, in essence, about the record) so too is it redundant to use "biography" as a heading, since the entire article is a biography.

It looks extremely ridiculous. Can we get rid of it? Please? Orane (talk) 04:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

For an encylopedia, there's no way "biography" as a heading is going to be banned. I don't see how having that heading results in poor prose. Take a look at these GA/FA articles with "biography" as a heading: "Weird Al" Yankovic, The Game (rapper), Frank Black, Peter Jennings, Kate Bush, Nick Drake, Alison Krauss, Witold Lutoslawski, Jenna Jameson, Amanda Bynes, Rachel Bilson, Keira Knightley, Larisa Oleynik, Alex Pettyfer, Brandon Routh, Kevin Spacey, Dylan and Cole Sprouse, Evan Rachel Wood.

I think "biography" in the title looks good in those articles. Maybe you have other headings in mind? Spellcast 06:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

First off, I'm not calling for a "ban." I'm just requesting that we consider other options. Also, what's so special/different about an encyclopedia that would make "biography" as a heading so right/hard to ban? Thirdly, I am aware of the use of "biography" in these articles. But that's what I'm trying to change. Also, just because many people do it, that doesn't make it right.

I'm not sure what would look good in an article. "Life and career," "Career" and many others could fit.

But again, Biography is a genre of writing that gives an account of the events of someone's life, as well as an interpretation of that person's life to form a cohesive report. It cannot be designated as a section within a biographical article. What we are having is a biographical article with a topic/section entitled "biography," which doesn't make sense. I know that it's semantics, but it's little details like these that influence the larger picture. Orane (talk) 06:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Order of headings

The order of headings which gives preference to Wikified content over non-Wiki content (See also first) has been established since at least 2005. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Using "The" in section headers

This page proscribes starting section headers with "the" in all cases. Why? I agree that when a section is about a general topic, its header should not begin with the, but, for instance, when writing a battle article, I don't want to write a section about "battle", I want to write a section about "the battle" in question. Any objections to changing this? --Robth^Talk 03:30, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Give me an example where you require it. I've worked on a number of battle pages, and I've never seen a need for it. —Viriditas | Talk 06:17, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, Battle of Arginusae, which I just finished working on, currently contains a section called "the battle" and one called "the relief force", both of which sound much more natural when talking about a specific battle and a specific relief force than the generalized form. We have the definite article for a reason; it allows us to be specific in this way, and sometimes it's appropriate to be specific in this fashion in section headings. --Robth^Talk 06:50, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. The best advice I can give you is to take a look at other articles, like WWII, Battle of the Bulge, etc. That should give you some ideas. —Viriditas | Talk 10:02, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Battle of the Bulge is a great example of why this is a silly requirement. Note the subsection entitled "allies prevail"; that's silly. "The allies" of WWII are never referred to without the definite article, and there's no reason that we should break with that standard usage just to meet some arbitrary requirement we've imposed on ourselves. --Robth^Talk 17:49, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I gave you two links, but I suggest reviewing many more. The WWII link uses headers appropriately (IMO) whereas the BotB does not. —Viriditas | Talk 20:58, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

This seems like a baseless, artificial requirement -- at least as regards the definite article. We have Featured articles that violate this proscription. Belton House, Matthew Brettingham, Buckingham Palace, Cathedral of Magdeburg, Dürer's Rhinoceros, IG Farben Building, Action potential, Antarctic krill and so on. Note that I checked only a few of these to see if the headings included "The" as of FA status. older ≠ wiser 22:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

It's not baseless. There are a number of related guidelines that have been around for some time, like Strunk's Elements of Style. —Viriditas | Talk 22:14, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying this guidance is from Strunk? Where exactly? The only reference I can see that is close is for Titles in the section A Few Matters of Form, where it says "Omit A or The from titles when you place the possessive before them", which is not really applicable to the dubious guideline under discussion. Are there any common style guides that recommend this? In any case, if it does not reflect Wikipedia practice as represented by our Featured Articles, it should not be a guideline in the MOS. older ≠ wiser 22:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

The writer of the guideline may have been influenced by Strunk, both by the title convention you quote, as well as by others, such as omitting needless words, etc. MLA, APA and other research guidelines expand it. I'm genuinely curious: how does using a or the in section titles inform or help the reader? It appears to be needless. I've also noticed that many published, scholarly books avoid the use of articles in chapter/section headings. For example, I'm using a book by Myron A. Marty for an article I'm working on at the moment. Marty's book is an historical analysis of the sixties in the U.S. The book contains 33 subsections, of which only two use the, and as far as I can tell, he uses them for emphasis. Less serious books on the same subject, do use the articles on a consistent basis. In most instances, a, an, and the should not be used in headings. Describing the topic without the use of these articles is effective, and as far as I can see, encyclopedic. —Viriditas | Talk 23:37, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

The point is that there are certain subjects that can only be correctly referred to using the definite article. "The allies" above is a good example. Scholarly books do not use "the" when it is unnecessary, but they do use it when it is (looking at G.E.M. De Ste. Croix's "The origins of the Peloponnesian War", perhaps the definitive scholarly work on that subject, I would say that about one quarter to one half of the section headers begin with "the"). A section about "allies" is not the same as a section about "the allies"; a section about "Megarian decrees" is not the same as one about "The Megarian decrees". Simplicity is preferable when it can be achieved without obscuring meaning, but should not be sought at the expense of clarity. We shouldn't draw an arbitrary line that restricts our ability to communicate effectively in subject headers. --Robth^Talk 06:59, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Again, I have no idea who wrote that particular guideline or why, but I think it works. I found a few informal rules of grammar in The St. Martin's Guide to Writing that might apply to headings: "Use no article before a plural count noun when it does not refer to a specific entity...Use no article before a noncount noun when the reference is general." Strangely enough, it appears both of these rules describe most headings. I don't know if I hit gold or if I'm digging a deeper hole. :) —Viriditas | Talk 08:57, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

But sometimews we do refer to a specific entity, and sometimes the reference is not general. I don't think the guideline "works"; I just think we've for some reason accepted it and written unnecessarily weird headings as a result; there are certainly style guidelines that sort of relate to this question, but I don't know that anyone-even Strunk and White, who went way down the road of laying down hard and fast guidelines even in iffy cases--goes so far as to prohibit "the" in headers. We can certainly advise against it when it would be unncecessary verbiage, but sometimes it's necessary. --Robth^Talk 12:17, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with some of your points, but I feel more research is necessary. Just so we are all on the same page, additional information about this subject may be found under keywords: determiner deletion. —Viriditas | Talk 21:44, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure more research is necessary. I see no evidence that even one stylesheet gives a similar prohibition, and there is evidence that scholarly publications do not follow it--certainly not strictly, and many not at all. Somebody, at some point, wrote this into the MoS; that simple action shouldn't create so much inertia that we're afraid to change it for good reason. --Robth^Talk 23:47, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I've concluded my research. I think it was necessary to find out why the guideline exists, and I believe I've done just that, although it should be obvious to anyone who works in the media. The proscription is a generally accepted guideline used by journalists to construct headlines, and exceptions are allowed for clarity. [4] This guideline can only help Wikipedia, not hurt it, but I would like to see it modified to address any outstanding concerns. —Viriditas | Talk 00:09, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, journalists do this; newspapers and other media have to fit as much information as possible into as small a space as possible in headlines; we do not have the same space constraints that they do. Omitting "the" when redundant or unnecessary is good, but that would be best dealt with by a guideline that said "do not use redundant or unnecessary words in headlines". If we are to use this, we should have a good explanation of why this guideline would be beneficial to Wikipedia editors, not journalists. So: what exactly does Wikipedia gain from using this guideline, as opposed to just saying "don't use unnecessary or redundant words in headers"? --Robth^Talk 01:05, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia has space constraints; article size limitations require long articles to be split into sections, subsections, and eventually new articles on subtopics (see WP:SS). So we impose size constraints for the sake of the poor reader. Indefinite articles are unnecessary in most headings for the same reason; the reader expects to be informed with a clear, simple, and direct heading; determiners can even be misused to mislead the reader. The benefits of the guideline outweigh the risks. —Viriditas | Talk 03:32, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we have space constraints, but unlike newspapers, we do not need to squeeze the most attention-grabbing phrase possible into the smallest possible headline; please explain how not starting headers with "the" helps us deal with our space constraints. I agree that indefinite articles are almost always unncecessary, and indefinite articles are often unnecessary, but this is not always the case; what does this guideline give us that a proscription on using unnecessary words would not. How exactly can determiners be used to mislead the reader? Please give an example. --Robth^Talk 05:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Indefinite and definite articles are unnecessary in headings, but exceptions for clarity should be allowed. Headings should use concise terms that summarize the topic. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (definite and indefinite articles at beginning of name) should be synchronized with this guideline, as these names are often used in headings. The New York Public Library Writer's Guide to Style and Usage quotes Roy H. Copperud on the misleading use of the definite article the: "Careless use of the may confer a distinction that is either inaccurate, unintended, or both. Referring to John Jones as "the vice-president of the Smith Corporation" implies that the corporation has only one vice-president. "Laurence Olivier, the actor" is acceptable...referring to...Hazel Gooch...of Broken Bottle, Iowa, as "the [rather than an] actress" leaves the reader...rattled...his ignorance of Miss Gooch is nothing to be ashamed of." —Viriditas | Talk 22:17, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I realiz/se I avoid prefixing "The" much/most if not nearly all the time, probably because it's redundant much/most if not all nearly all the time... Regards, David Kernow (talk) 00:01, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Add me as another who doesn't see the point of this proscription. Looking at the sources I used for Walter Model, none of them seem to have a problem with "The" beginning a chapter heading. It may not be a particularly common practice, but it's certainly present. Heck, one of them (Atlas of the Second World War, ed. Peter Young) uses "The _____" as a section head nearly all the time: "The battle of Leyte Gulf", "The fall of Tobruk", "The Arctic convoys", etc. The proscription seems more suited for newspaper/magazine article titles, not scholarly works: I can see a newspaper headline "Allies prevail", but the same in a history book would probably have "The" inserted in front. -- Hongooi 07:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Links in headings

I don't understand the basis for this point of style. It may be possible, but it is difficult to change the default way that headings are coloured, first, and underlined when a mouse is over them. Lynx never has trouble highlighting links in standard HTML. What browser settings does this reflect? It's worth noting that <body> tags contain a colour for links that over-rides your default. The basis for no links in headings is null. Brewhaha@edmc.net 10:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Best practices and how to determine the "name" for a section.

I primarily edit Sports related articles. Many of the section headings are poorly constructed (at least in my mind). Take the Oakland Raiders article. The franchise history section seems titled more by POV statements. Is there any guideline in place that discusses "how to determine the sections name"? If not - should there be? Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat 08:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Use of subheadings as first-level as a matter of style preference

I've run across a few edits and editors that appear to prefer to use === and ==== as the primary heading for new sections in some situations. Can this manual of style say anything on this? See diff and diff. Should we always begin with == when it's not a subheading? My preference and from what I understand of this manual section is that we should begin with the h2 section heading. What does everyone else think? Looking for some clarification here. Cheers, --Rkitko ^(talk) 15:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I also personally prefer to begin with the h2 section heading—when outlining in English (as in preparation for an academic paper or work of fiction), one does not start with an "A" (the equivalent of an h3 heading), but with the Roman numeral "I" (the top level/h2 heading). DocWatson42 05:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. So do you think that the nesting section of the manual speaks to that clearly enough, or does it require a statement that would discourage the use of subheadings as primary headings as a matter of personal preference, such as in the two examples given above? --Rkitko ^(talk) 12:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

From a strictly technical (and web-usability) angle, the first heading in an article should be "==", which equates to a <h2> tag, as the <h1> is the article name, and sub-sections are sub because they're coming off of that one. For example, look at the outline of Darth Vader.[5] EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why retain this submanual

I've compared this with MOS's section on headings, and wonder why on earth this is a separate page, given the small amount of extra information it contains. Can anyone think of a good reason that the additional information should not be simply added to MOS and this page deleted? Tony (talk) 11:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I find it useful to refer to WP:HEAD as a separate page. Perhaps a better solution might be to gut the MOS's section on headers, and put more detail here? Gracenotes^T § 19:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Unsupported personal statement. Any detail/logic behind this, apart from that you personally are used to coming here? My objection is that there are currently two locations for this information in MOS, and that this one contains so little extra that it should be deleted and the text rationalised. Apart from all else, this text is very poorly contructed and written. Tony (talk) 00:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Bronx

I think we would agree that the above is the proper form of its Header when so needed. However, what about the CIA? Or the Cheka? --Ludvikus 02:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)