Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Headings/Archive 1

message: I'm delighted that Wikipedia uses sentence-style case in headlines! Sentence-style case in headlines has two great practical advantages:
* it preserves the distinction that proper nouns (names) get from being capitalized (a "god" versus the one and only "God");
* it is easy to understand and agree upon.
Valuable information would be destroyed if we followed the practice of many U.S. publishers, who capitalize "almost" every word in a heading. Capitalizing additional words in a title can add a lot of ambiguity. I find this very irritating. For example:
* "European union leaders" means "the leaders of some trade/labor/etc. unions in Europe";
* "European Union leaders" means "the leaders of the organization named European Union".
Applying title case, as in "European Union Leaders", destoys this semantically important distinction, especially in headings, where it is customary to drop the determiners that could preserve at least some of this distinction.
Sentence-case headings are standard practice among trained British typesetters (as opposed to British amateurs who imitate the house style of some U.S. publisher). There are countless different, mutually incompatible rules in use among U.S. publishers for what exactly "almost" means when "almost" all words in a title should be capitalized. The article on capitalization outlines some of the more common ones. It would be a nightmare for Wikipedia to first agree on such a complicated (and by practical necessity always incomplete) set of special capitalization rules for headings, and then train all Wikipedia users to follow it. None of this complication is necessary as long as we simply use the same rules in headings that we use in normal sentences, and those rules are not very controversial. Complicated special capitalization rules for headings would create lots of unnecessary changes; things are already bad enough at present with the neverending reverts between British and American spellings. Please let's stick with the simplest and most informative convention: sentence case.
To those asking for authoritative references, I can point at all publications of the International Organization for Standardization and similar international standards organizations, which use the same sentence-style case in headings as Wikipedia. A very good choice in my humble opinion. I agree that the use of "title case" in book titles may sometimes be justified if the title is such that it is likely to be used as the name of the book (as in Gone With the Wind, Gone with the Wind, or Gone With The Wind). In this case the rule for capitalizing names may become applicable. But this hardly applies for headings. Here, "title case" is really nothing but an archaic form of emphasis and it has become obsolete with the introduction of bold typeface and the use of larger font sizes to distinguish headings. I very much hope that sentence-style case in headings will catch on, even among U.S. publishers and U.S. style-guide authors!
— Markus Kuhn 16:51, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Advantages of the current sentence-case rule

message: Moved from Wikipedia:Village pump
I'm seeing a lot of pages where the Header hierarchy starts with a second-level Header (===). MediaWiki apparently has no trouble with this and just ignores the "hidden" level for the purpose of numbering the Sections; they start at 1. and continue. However if someone appends a further Section (say External Links) at the top level (==), this appears as another 1. Section which is confusing. Assuming that this is not the ideal state of affairs, is this explicitly stated somewhere? I have searched but have been unable to locate anything appropriate. If this is incorrect, is there an easy way to seek & destroycorrect or do we just keep an eye out? Phil 12:16, Dec 12, 2003 (UTC)
: The Wikipedia:Manual of Style requests of you to start all headers at == and to work down from there. I go through now and correct mucked up headers when I see them - it looks rather ugly having === headers throughout and having == headers sporadically interspersed at the end, or whatever. Dysprosia 12:32, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: However, this can be usefull in a WikiProject, with the stuff at the begining (parent projects, sibling projects, list of contributers, etc.) on the "===" set of headings, and the template on "==", which then starts numbering at one again.Gentgeen 14:07, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: What, and form a Wikipedia Manual of Style brigade? :) Sounds cool, but I thought WikiProjects were dedicated to information, and not just formatting? Dysprosia 23:02, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Header protocol 

message: Moved from article by Dittaeva 13:40, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Links within headers

message: : ==Spaces in headers== or == Spaces in headers == ?
--Nohat 05:47, 2004 Feb 26 (UTC)
::I don't think there is any guideline for this yet, but maybe we could figure out what is best? For the Wikipedia software it does not matter if you use space between :, *, or ==, it will show the same thing anyway. This is only an issue for users like you and me, that want to know what is best.
My own policy is to have no space, or at least be consistent. I figured that since no space is necessary I micght as well remove it.
But I think it is also a question about what is easiest to understand and work with visually. Summarising I'd say as long as you consistent, you're fine. --Dittaeva 12:57, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Spaces in headers

message: Regarding:
:Note that with the == brackets used, no space under the headline is needed. The space should be removed.
This does not seem like good practice to me, since it prevents the generation of a paragraph-opening tag, . The opening tag is required for paragraphs in HTML; specifically, if the space under the headline is removed, the chunk of text to follow is not, semantically, a paragraph. (Its immediate parent containing block is the div id="article".) Minor, I know, but it may have adverse effects for some browsers. It still validates, because plain text is allowed inside div blocks, but without a  to mark it, it's text with zero structural meaning, and to me seems no better than using  instead of . Yeah, there's the issue of the space causing the introduction of extra space between the heading and the paragraph - but isn't that an issue for the stylesheets anyway? -- Wapcaplet 12:34 30 Jun 2003 (UTC)
:That is an issue with our markup parser, which handles P tags poorly. You are absolutely right: all text should be in P tags. Since a future fix of our parser will a) fix P tag behaviour and b) make space beneath headings irrelevant, I guess we can just ignore it for now.  -- Tarquin 12:38 30 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Sweet. I will not worry about it then. -- Wapcaplet 12:41 30 Jun 2003 (UTC)
----
I would prefer a blank line in the wikitext between header and section text, to make the header stand out more in the edit box.--Patrick 13:38, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree—the blank line makes it easier to locate the headers while editing.  Since the generation of the HTML is the same, it seems like the "preferred" format in the edit text is whatever best facilitates editing.  For me, at least, the whitespace helps to see the organization of the outline easily. – Doug Bell talk•contrib 01:51, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Spaces between header and section text?

message: Is it just my browser, or is the Wikipedia software failing to distinguish between ===heading 2=== and ====heading 3==== headings?  This is a really lame problem.  See Energy development Hawstom 23:24, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Rendering of level 3 headings

message: My instinct is that titles in headings should not be italicized. However, I've seen it done once or twice, so I thought I'd ask about it here. (If I can remember where I saw this being done, I'll link to it as an example.) Jason One 01:01, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I lean toward agreement, but I lean away from italics in general. Maurreen 21:34, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: tee hee.  Nice one, Maurreen! (I think that titles in headings should be italicized, though.)  Noisy | Talk 23:21, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: So, does anyone else have an opinion on this? I'm still not sure what to do. Jason One 20:27, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Titles italicized within headings?

message: Some editors use special characters in the headings, and I've added a new section recommending against its use in accordance with accepted naming conventions, but appealing to consistency of style rather than the technical issues one finds with article titles.  I would appreciate any comments or suggestions. --Viriditas  | Talk 09:18, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Special characters 

message: The guidelines on left and right floating TOCs now linked to from the page were a result of discussion and a poll at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Template:TOCright, and should be considered to have achieved consensus as guideliens, IMO. the discussion was advertised at WP:RFC and at the village pump for over a month. DES (talk) 23:06, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  TOC guidelines 

message: How can I include a header without the edit tag showing up and without an automatically generated TOC. I'm only wondering for my user page, not a Wikipedia article. ElAmericano 22:09, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The automatically generated TOC can be turned off by including __NOTOC__ on the page.  As for the edit tag, I think those can only be turned off in by the user (by unchecking "Enable section editing via [edit] links" in Preferences/Editing). --Spiffy sperry 00:10, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove edit tag? 

message: Shouldn't the heading capitalisation be spelled capitalization?  I was under the impression that the American spelling should be used unless the article concerns a British or European topic.  --Dan East 05:06, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English: For the English Wikipedia, there is no preference among the major national varieties of English. --Vclaw 17:38, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capitalisation -> Capitalization 

message: A lot of pages seem to have a header called "Further reading" where books (that not was used as a reference) about the subject are listed. According to Cite sources "The ==External links== or ==Further reading== section is placed after the references section", but it doesn't say anything about how the order should be if there are both "External links" and "Further reading"-sections. Therefore I propose that the new "Standard headings and ordering" should be: 
* See also
* References
* External links
* Further reading
* Notes
- David Björklund (talk) 13:35, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#References/external links name-change proposal, which proposes to make some changes to these recommended headings. older≠wiser 14:07, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further reading 

message: Is there a reason for the given order of headings at the end of an article?  To me, the following order makes much more sense:
*See also
*References
*Notes
*External links
Maybe it's inconsequential, but to me grouping references and notes is better than separating them, because they are directly related (Notes often refer to works appearing in the references).  External links, since they were not referenced in the creation of the article, should go last, in my opinion.  It would appear that a few people on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Céline Dion would agree with me.  Thoughts? --Spangineeres (háblame) 03:29, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the above. The preferrable order—in my eyes—is "See also", "References", "Notes" (or vice versa, it doesn't really matter), and "External links". The latter does not reference the article, and should therefore be placed at the bottom. —Hollow Wilerding 23:17, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Agree completely.  I'll add that having "Notes" before "References" seems to be rather more common than vice versa. Kirill Lokshin 23:24, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Quite true.  Traditional Chicago-style notes (which I personally prefer) repeat the full reference in its first appearance in the notes, so the question of author names is neatly avoided; but this might be more of an issue for other systems.  I suspect it's best to just leave the order of those two sections flexible. Kirill Lokshin 03:28, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

text: A separate reference section is still needed if some works are references but not directly cited, and it's useful to have one as a summary of the sources if the list of notes is long.  Kirill Lokshin 03:55, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Order of headings? 

message: On template talk pages I suggest that sections of level = are encouraged to be used, this for the ability to separate documentation and discussion, and allow using + to add a new section under discussion (see ) →AzaToth 20:19, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, templates are a special case.--Patrick 03:12, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Exception of the rule to use == as top level section 

message: What is the rule for a full stop at the end of a header?  Given the rule that says headers should be nouns or noun phrases, this implies that a header should not be a complete sentence, nor should it have any full stops (periods).  This is not explicitly mentioned in the main page.  It should be.  See Coins of Cyprus for an example of this. Markkawika 11:13, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously there should be no end-of-sentence period (full stop) at the end of a heading, not even if the text of the heading forms a full sentence. Periods terminate sentences within a paragraph. But in the case of a heading, the typographic emphasis applied makes it already perfectly clear where the heading ends. However, you can have a ? or ! at the end of a heading, as well as a period if it indicates an abbreviation. I would have thought that this is so well established and commonly followed that there seems no real need to explicitely mention it in the Manual of Style. Is the problem very common? Are there contributors who object to you removing such periods? Otherwise, just be bold and fix it where you spot it. Markus Kuhn 17:46, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a contributor who insists on full stop at the end of every heading in all of the articles he creates.  I guess I'll just go and remove it, and if he objects I'll bring it up here again. Markkawika 01:15, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about full stop (period)? 

message: What exactly is the difference between a "References" section and an "External links" section? Both are just pointers to more information on the subject. What does the reader gain from this distinction, and where is it documented what the difference is? Markus Kuhn 17:37, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The references section can provide book references and such that don't have web links.  I see what you mean though.  External links tend to be both "see also" and "references" at the same time... — Omegatron 15:24, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: External links are links given that are useful for further information but that were not used as a source for the article.  Their printed equivalent is "Further reading". If any outside source was used in the writing of the article, whether printed or online, it is a reference and should be included in that section. --Spangineer (háblame) 16:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "References" vs. "External links"

message: How about adding the following (or something like it) to the "Wording" section, if it's correct:
::"Avoid repeating section titles.  However, if this is necessary, the automatically generated Table of Contents will be able to differentiate between the repeated titles, but not if they have different capitalization.  Manual links to sections with repeated titles (regardless of capitalization) will only go to the first occurrence."
--Spiffy sperry 00:34, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The capitalization part needs a bug report? — Omegatron 14:31, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

text: To answer both questions above, my main interest in this entry was to let people know what might happen if titles are repeated.  Maybe we can say something other than "Avoid" while still getting that point across (which is why I put "if this is necessary").  I haven't checked whether a bug report has been made (or decided if it's needed), but I wouldn't mind if someone else took the lead on that.  However, I would think that in most cases the title's capitalization was the problem, rather than the TOC. --Spiffy sperry 14:55, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Repeated titles

message: I have removed the language added about the formatting of Template Talk pages.  The Manual of Style is for articles, not for project pages or discussion pages.  While I'm sympathetic to the aim of the text, it doesn't belong anywhere in the MoS. --TreyHarris 16:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Where should it be placed then? →AzaToth 16:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, probably? --TreyHarris 22:01, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverted template talk text 

message: I have noticed quite a few articles that start with headings, see this for example. I consider this terrble style, it looks awful and is totally unnessecary as the title of the article acts as the first heading anyway. Possibly even worse are articles that start with ==Overview== or ==Introduction== (e.g. this). Can we add a brief sentence to discourge this? thanks Martin 11:35, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it's necessary, as Wikipedia:Guide to layout and Wikipedia:Lead section already make this clear. Feel free to add pointers to this, however.  --TreyHarris 14:14, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didnt realise it was already stated there, thanks for pointing it out. I have compiled a list of 400 articles that start with either == Overview == or == Introduction ==, now I can go about fixing them. Martin 14:28, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Articles that start with headings 

message: Hi. On the article about The Apprentice I changed the country headings (under "Other countries") to proper headings level two headings (i.e. "==="). These were promptly changed back on the grounds of "shortening TOC; sections are not detailed enough to justify an entire header". Now, I can see the logic in that from an aesthetic perspective, but simultaneously, these are definitely headings, so my pedantic side says they should be labelled as such. I was hoping to find guidance in the MoS, but couldn't spot anything definitive (it did read like the assumption was that headings should be marked up accordingly, but I don't think it says it outright). So, I'm here looking for guidance. I guess a good solution might be something that allows them to be marked up correctly, but supresses their appearance in the TOC. Jamse 23:15, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  When to not use headings? 

message: Does anyone else sometimes feel the use of the heading "Trivia" to be inappropriate for the cluster or list of fact(oid)s that follow?
For me, "Trivia" has overtones of "trivial", which may be apposite for (say) tidbits of information about a celebrity, but not, for example, for information such as here (this is the most recent example I've come across, which I've managed to edit out).
I suggest (what I hope is) a more neutral term such as "Miscellany" for general use.
Regards, David Kernow 22:46, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In general, trivia sections aren't highly looked upon in articles, so as far as I know there isn't a "standard" way to do it.  Normally, the stuff in trivia sections is trivial (madeup example: Did you know that J. Lo's right pinky finger is bigger than her left pinky?)  Normally, the information in a "trivia" section should be axed or incorporated into the article prose itself if it's significant enough. Often, a "In popular culture" section or the like is used to pull together media-related trivia facts (first person to appear on David Letterman 3 times, what have you). —Spangineer[es] (háblame) 00:37, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Trivia" heading 

message: Bits of information that are relevant and might be of interest but do not sit easily in the main body of an article sometimes appear under a heading such as Trivia or Miscellany. The heading Trivia, however, should be reserved for collections of information that are of a more humorous or quirky nature.
Thanks, David Kernow 01:19, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Trivia, Miscellany, etc.

message: If a word or phrase is typically written in Italics, such as the name of a book or TV show, is it appropriate to carry those Italics into a section header if the word appears there? As far as I can tell there is no mention of this in the MoS. Thanks! --Naha|(talk) 20:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As you will see if you look in your watchlist or page history and try to jump to this section, it looks like the jump arrow does not work on sections that have italicized text.  So I think it would be best if we not use italics in sections for now.  If you want to open a bug and the problem were fixed, we could revisit the issue. --TreyHarris 20:51, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Although the link does work fine from the TOC and if entered in a link using #Italics in section headers.  I don't know if the bug with the jump arrows is enough reason by itself to not use italics.  Not having a strong opinion or any precedent I can point to, I tend to favor using italics in the case given above. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 21:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Italics'' in section headers 

message: I was looking to find how to ref a whole subsection from one source without having the number to  in the heading or if this cool as is.  Please see Geography of Texas#Resources, and point the way.  Joe  I 12:19, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Refs in headings