Wikipedia talk:Section

message: The section editing feature in most cases does not work when the page is displayed with a table of differences between two versions (changes, cur, dif and last). First press Current revision.
:Could this be corrected? - Patrick 21:43, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right, I have corrected it now. - Patrick 11:41, 30 Jul 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Section edits on diffs

message: A first time user of the Wikipedia might well think that he can simply type text in the little text box.  
But, reading to details, we find there are various cryptic looking codes to accomplish things.
It would be nice if the directions made it clear whether these codes form some
kind well known system or whether they are unique only to the Wikipedia. 
(I don't claim to know the answer, myself.  Is it "html" ?) -- (unsigned comment)
:It's not HTML. As far as I know, __TOC__ is used in several different wikis, but alien to the rest of the world. // Pathoschild 01:43, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Simple Point Should Be Clarified 

message: Moved from Wikipedia:Village pump on Thursday, September 25th, 02003.
Why do some pages (my homepage for example) appear with the first line of the first paragraph slightly indented? It is not very attractive. What would would be attractive (IMHO) would be a convention to have a three-line drop-capital (like this) at the start of each article. Perhaps the style committee could look into it. Dr Adam Carr 01:00, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  unwanted indents 

message: Moved from Wikipedia:Village pump/March 2003 archive 2 on Thursday, September 25th, 02003.
At Timeline of trends in music (1980-present), there is a link for George Strait's album #7 in 1986, but the link functions as a self-link instead of leading to an article entitled #7.  Is this a feature?  If so, can it be fixed? Tuf-Kat
:It's not precisely a self-link: it's linking to http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_trends_in_music_(1980-present)#7 - and a link I just tried in preview mode on this page linked to http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump&action=submit#7. My guess is that the # sign is making something somewhere think that #7 is a link to a within-page anchor, not to another article. I have no idea how to fix this, apart from forbidding article names beginning with #.
:--Paul A 03:23 Mar 10, 2003 (UTC)
::The # character is reserved and is not allowed in page titles. They are allowed in links purely for the purpose of linking to internal anchors -- but the syntax for defining internal anchors has never been enabled, so they aren't much good. ;) --Brion 04:40 Mar 10, 2003 (UTC)
:See Sharp-P for an article with this problem. You may wish to call your article Number 7 (album) and use . Deco 20:53, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Internal link trickiness 

message: The article C programming language currently uses a style for 
links and references that seems more pleasing (at least to me) than
the usual style.   Especially when there are References, See also, and
External links lists, then I'd like to see the style used in C programming language promoted as general usage. Bevo 20:12, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  links and references 

message: :Sections in a template do not appear in the TOC of the referring page. The automatic section numbering restarts with 1 at the beginning of a template, and continues with the section numbering of the referring page itself after the template.
I've removed these sentences because they appear to no longer be true. See, for example, my Sep 1st edit of Wikipedia:How to edit a page, where the TOC numbering on the old version using the template is now screwed up even though it was working "as advertized" back in September when I made the edit. - dcljr 17:39, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Templates do not restart numbering 

message: Can someone tell me how to use it? (I right-clicked and nothing happened.) Thanks. AirBa 18:26, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: When editing the first section I just click the Edit tab for the whole page…Barefootguru 21:25, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Section Editing for ''the First section''?

message: Considering that none of the information/guidelines on Wikipedia:Headings is included on this page, in what way can the former be considered "merged" into the latter? Hyacinth 21:38, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Merged?

message: The guidelines on left and right floating TOCs now on 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) 23:05, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  More on floating TOCs 

message: Is it possible to force a TOC onto a page even if a user has their preferences set to suppress the TOC normally?  Rossami (talk) 13:06, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Forcing TOC 

message: "When right click editing is enabled, you cannot right click a link in a header to open it in a new window, etc. However most browsers have an alternative way of doing that (Mozilla: middle click, ctrl+left click, type ahead find, TAB navigation; Opera: middle click, shift+left click, ctrl+shift+left click; IE: shift+left click)."
First I'm not sure how appropriate a how-to-use-your-browser section is for this article, because it verges on being off-topic. Second, I don't really understand what this person is talking about. What is right click editing? Is this user talking about the very minor issue of a link in a section header not appearing in the TOC? (e.g. <TT>==Hello, World==</TT> would not have a link to the Hello, World article within the TOC but a link to the "#Hello, World" section within the same page.)
—Tokek 22:07, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This refers to an option in preferences which, using javascript, opens an edit page when you right-click on a heading. — Dan | Talk 02:52, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article section: Opening a link in a header in a new window 

message: The first page of :Category:Redirects from title without diacritics ends at Augusto B. Leguia, so you have to click <next 200> many times. Inserting a TOC apparently didn't help much. It would be great if we had TOCs that, when users click on the letter <Q>, direct them to the first page of all entries that start with the letter Q. Do we have such TOCs or can somebody create them for use with all similar pages? Thanks in advance. – Wikipeditor 07:17, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: —Cryptic (talk) 22:21, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. – Wikipeditor 10:17, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Very long lists 

message: There were minor differences in the parallel text on MoS.  First, I tried harmonizing the two.  On second thought, it just seemed better to merge the text there, as this was the only explicitly named section here.
However, MoS is getting rather large, and several other topics have been moved to a separate page.  Shouldn't all the MoS Sections section be merged here, instead?  (That's a bigger merge, thus more controversial, but it should be relatively clean here.)
:--William Allen Simpson 00:56, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "See also" line or section 

message: What's going on, there are undiscussed changes?
:--William Allen Simpson 00:22, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  {Main}, {See} 

message: Over my time on Wikipedia, I have noticed that, at the bottom of the page, after all of the standard appendices, there tend to be a lot of link farms (including the succession tables).  At first, I was going to propose that we create a new standard appendix, named "Navigation", for these tables and it would occur last on the page.  (It would have the additional advantage of "containing" the categories, which are another navigational aid.)  Then it occurred to me that we already have a "Navigation" section, named "See also".   
So why aren't editors putting the link farms in the "See also" section?  One reason may be aesthetics, but there is also a far more compelling reason:  usability.  For any lengthy article, it is much easier to slam that scroll bar to the bottom of the page than it is to carefully navigate to a section in the middle of the page.  Thus, it is much easier to find navigational controls when they are at the bottom of the page.  Therefore, I am going to make the following suggestion:
: Should we move the "See also" section to the last section in the article, after "External links" and "References"?
— DLJessup (talk) 00:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  See also to bottom of page? 

message: : The following proposal is an outgrowth of #See also to bottom of page?, where I received a decent explanation for why navigational templates aren't located under “See also” and why “See also” is located where it is.
I have been convinced for a while now that there needs to be a separate standard appendix, named “Navigation”, for navigational templates.  First of all, under current practices, the navigational templates appear to be part of one of the other standard appendices, usually “External links” or “References”.  Moreover, most edits to the navigational templates show up under those standard appendices in the page history because the editor almost invariably uses the section edit link.  (Who wants to deal with more wikitext in the edit box than they have to?)  As a bonus, the categories and language links will also fall under “Navigation” and will be similarly displayed in the edit history.
This also helps work against another confusion:  why aren't the navigational templates located under “See also”?  By creating a separate template for single article links and navigational templates, it helps prevent a confused newbie (such as myself, long ago) from wanting to move navigational templates there.
— DLJessup (talk) 17:29, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To clarify, you're referring to Wikipedia:Navigational_templates#Footers, right? I agree with others (from your initial topic above) that an additional section is not necessary since there are dozens of other "footers" that are commonly added at the bottom, as well. I mention this issue briefly at Wikipedia_talk:Citing_sources#Appendices_and_their_order; you may be interested. --J. J. 21:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  “Navigation” as standard appendix 

message: I know WP is not supposed to have articles that are just lists of quotes (actually, there's an exception I find a little confusing: "Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic").  However, is a quotes section of an article frowned upon as well?  I can't seem to find a policy on that; is there one? Шизомби 04:51, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, found it here Wikipedia:Guide to layout#Quotations.  Maybe it should be mentioned under Wikipedia:Section#Appendix sections. Шизомби 08:08, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: WP policy, if any, on a "Quotes section"?

message: Is there a way to search for text that appears in section headings, just as it is possible to search article titles? Шизомби 04:51, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Searching sections?