![]() | This is the
talk page of a
redirect that targets the page: • Wikipedia:Manual of Style Because this page is not frequently watched, present and future discussions, edit requests and requested moves should take place at: • Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style |
![]() |
Manual of Style ![]() ![]() | |||||||||
|
|
|
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)
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)
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?
Sentence Case? Look at the information in the Web Style Guide v3 (at webstyleguide.com), "Typographic Emphasis" section in Chapter 8. Has some very pertinent information about the use of capitalisation and its affect on legibility and accessibility - applicable to print as well as web. DMcC ( talk) 11:48, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
This manual says:
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
The style manuals say "only" too often. Michael Hardy 19:57, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Should we avoid rhetorical questions in headers? For an example see Y2K. Any opinions? -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 03:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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'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 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)
![]() | This is the
talk page of a
redirect that targets the page: • Wikipedia:Manual of Style Because this page is not frequently watched, present and future discussions, edit requests and requested moves should take place at: • Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style |
![]() |
Manual of Style ![]() ![]() | |||||||||
|
|
|
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)
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)
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?
Sentence Case? Look at the information in the Web Style Guide v3 (at webstyleguide.com), "Typographic Emphasis" section in Chapter 8. Has some very pertinent information about the use of capitalisation and its affect on legibility and accessibility - applicable to print as well as web. DMcC ( talk) 11:48, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
This manual says:
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
The style manuals say "only" too often. Michael Hardy 19:57, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Should we avoid rhetorical questions in headers? For an example see Y2K. Any opinions? -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 03:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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'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 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)