![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Capitalize the first letter only of the first word and of any proper nouns in a heading, and leave all of the other letters in lower case.
This part of the Manual of Style is WRONG. Normal English usage is to capitalise the major words of headings and sub-headings. For example, to quote section 3.39 of The United States Government Print Office Style Manual 2000:
"3.39. All principal words are capitalized in titles of addresses, articles, books, captions, chapter and part headings, editorials, essays, headings, headlines, motion pictures and plays (including television and radio programs), papers, short poems, reports, songs, subheadings, subjects, and themes. The foregoing are also quoted." [bolding of relevant words is mine]
So, we have Related Links NOT Related links being correct usage. We have other similar incorrect styles used on the Wikipedia for a long time. For article titles we have to capitalise in certain ways for disambiguation. However, for headings and sub-headings within an article normal English language rules for capitalisation of titles should be followed. David Newton 17:00, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Indeed: the Manual of Style (I have just edited the linked section to include the British rules as opposed to saying merely 'uses capitals far more widely') suggests that capitalisation should be as appropriate, and not the American version thereof – a trend which, to me, does not appear to be overly sensible. — Sinuhe 09:07, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
So, none of the above discussion explains WHY this incorrect practice started. There seems to be no justification. The 'rule' seems to have just been arbitrarily put into place. I have seen people talk about the Chicago Manual of Style for other rules for the Wikipedia, so where is the reference for this situation? David Newton 07:57, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I agree. Frankly I find that headers look odd if not capitalizing important words within them. For example "Route Summary" looks much better then "Route summary". Consequently I'm suggesting we stick with the more capitalized version and I will continue to do so in all contributions. Gateman1997 28 June 2005 07:48 (UTC)
Allow Me to Add my Voice to the Chorus of those who Believe the Current Rule is Wrong. RadioKirk 03:40, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm delighted that Wikipedia uses sentence-style case in headlines! Sentence-style case in headlines has two great practical advantages:
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:
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)
As to the question of aesthetics, which style "looks better and more appropriate", I believe that this depends entirely on what you are accustomed to and what insights you have gained in the practical advantages of either convention. Preferences for heading case seem to be very much an acquired taste.
In may case, my profound rejection of U.S. style title-case capitalization began after I realized what mess it creates in bibliographic databases, such as the awful attempt in BibTeX to encode publication titles in several conventions simultaneously. It is easy to write algorithms that convert sentence case into any of the many title case conventions, but converting back into sentence case seems like a hard AI problem, as it requires understanding of the text. So just keep the original in sentence case!
This insight was compounded when I saw scientific journal editors mess up mathematical and scientific notation in headings by applying title case to them blindly, for example
Ever since I fully realized the advantages of using sentence case in headings, I have come to look at the U.S.-style title case with a deep sense of annoyance. It has caused me great pain being forced to use title case whenever I submit something to a (usually U.S. based) publisher whose house style requires such excessive capitalization in headings. None of the U.S. style manuals quoted in the discussion above gives even the slightest justification for why we should use different rules for capitalization in headings. I can see lots of practical disadvantages, but not a single advantage. I also do not know of any other language than American English in which house-style designers do such a cruel and unusual thing to their headings.
— Markus Kuhn 15:15, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Moved from Wikipedia:Village pump
What is the policy on headers? The headers that exist on such webpages as Analytical Society seem far too large for the article. Arno 07:33 Apr 8, 2003 (UTC)
This is not true. Leaving no space will cause the text to be put directly under the heading. This was done for the country template, to facilitate:
Full article: History of Somewheria
Somewheria was first discovered ....
However, for normal headers, this looks ugly, and should be avoided IMO:
Text immediately below
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)
Moved from article by Dittaeva 13:40, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I think it looks fine, is fairly natural for users, especially those new to wikipedia (see e.g. the open directory project, which does include links in their equivalent of headers).
dml 22:44, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)
-- Nohat 05:47, 2004 Feb 26 (UTC)
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)
Regarding:
This does not seem like good practice to me, since it prevents the generation of a paragraph-opening tag, <p>
. 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 <p>
to mark it, it's text with zero structural meaning, and to me seems no better than using <font size=+4><strong>
instead of <h1>
. 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)
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)
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)
Why? Obviously, it makes a difference whether there is a space under the headline. Look at this:
Blah blah blah
and this:
Blah blah blah
I've been changing the latter to the former in many articles; now I find this page telling people to use the latter, and saying it makes no difference! Michael Hardy 22:43, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
This appears to be a non-issue now; the heading examples above (with space and without) generate identical HTML and appear the same. I've rewritten the policy on spaces after headings to state that they are completely optional, much like having one or two spaces after periods. -- Wapcaplet 19:07, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Note: I started a discussion of this long ago, and I'm not able to find it... So I'll have to start a new one here. If anyone else can find the old discussion, please tell me.
I have noticed that many pages which only have one ext lk use ==External link== as the header of that section, while others use the plural form, ==External links==. I would make a case for the latter, as the former heading is often not updated as more ext lks are added. Besides, I think the grammar is sound, since one link is to be understood as one item of external links. Any comments? --
Wernher 13:49, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
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)
If there's no policy, go with your instincts. If you want a policy, propose one! jguk 21:10, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
What about dates or years in a heading? See The Ashes. IMO it looks ugly. 19:55, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
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)
4 standard headings are listed: See also, External links, References and Footnotes. My question is, should they always appear in that order?
The text reads, "Do not vary the wording or capitalisation of these headings." I am of the opinion that we should change it to read, "Do not vary the wording, captitalization, or order of these headings."
My argument for why the order should be the same is simply convenience for the reader. If an article has any information that falls under the standard headings, the standard headings will appear in a regular order, across all articles. Currently i have observed this to be generally true, that the same ordering is used, but i would like to see this specified. Alternately, if the order does not matter, we should state that explicitly. -- Fudoreaper 00:35:52, 2005-08-04 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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:
- David Björklund ( talk) 13:35, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
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:
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? -- Spangineer es (háblame) 03:29, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
I think "Notes" after "References" often works better; for example, see gas metal arc welding. If there are multiple references from the same source, it's preferable to list the references first so that the notes can refer to them by the last name of the author. It probably depends on the actual referencing system used. -- Spangineer es (háblame) 03:18, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
In Chicago-style notes, do you even need a references section? In any case, leaving it up to the author of the aritlce is probably the best way to go. Let's wait a day or two and see if anyone disagrees, and if not, we can make the change. -- Spangineer es (háblame) 03:48, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
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 {{ subst:doctl}}) → Aza Toth 20:19, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
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)
The automatically generated TOC is great - it provides order in a document. For a large document it would be good to be able to reflect the automatically generated TOC numbers in the actual section titles appearing within the document eg (within the body) 5.1.2 network neutrality. That way readers of hardcopy versions would be able to refer to the TOC and then find the appropriate section within the hardcopy document relatively easily. To simply insert them into the section or sub-section title creates a duplication of the numbers in the TOC eg you would get 5.1.2 5.1.2
I have been unable to find any "magic words" or HTML fix to accommodate this capability. Any thoughts?
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)
How about adding the following (or something like it) to the "Wording" section, if it's correct:
-- Spiffy sperry 00:34, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
I think this new wording is in conflict with the prior paragraph. It would be common to have some parallelization, such as the following in an article about cheese:
and this new paragraph would seem to conflict. -- TreyHarris 22:07, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Thanks for your thoughts, Spangineer. Would you or do you think anyone else would oppose adding a paragraph to the MoS (headings) and/or Wikipedia:Section pages along these lines? :
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)
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)
What's the big deal about capitalizing the first letter of every word (except prepositions) in section titles? Getting sick and tired of all the stupid bots making the section titles look like sentences when they are NOT! - Eep² 06:35, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
The advantage/argument of title case is that it differentiates text from a normal
sentence, which begin with the first letter of the first word (and any
proper noun and/or
acroynm) capitalized and end with a punctuation mark (period, exclamation point, question mark, etc). Titles shouldn't be sentence-like ("This is a sentence." vs. "Sentence") because they are supposed to be brief and vague so as to inspire the reader to want to read more about it.
Just because most of the world is backwards in this respect doesn't mean it's the correct/logical way of doing things. Lots of countries drive on the wrong (left) side of the road too... - Eep² 20:38, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
If no such capitalization emphasis is needed on EVERY word (or at least non-prepositions), then why even capitalize the FIRST word's first letter? The titles are NOT sentences because they (usually) don't have ending punctuation. "External links" isn't a sentence (and would be grammatically incorrect if it were "External links.". "external links" would be a better choice but then it just looks weird which is why I prefer "External Links" since it's short enough to obviously not be confused with a sentence. Hell, why even capitalize ANYTHING then? For emphasis, one could argue--which is what a title IS (and why I capitalize all letters in a word *I* want to emphasis (except "I" since it's ALREADY capitalized so I used asterisks around it instead). Are you getting confused yet? So many different ways to emphasize words yet no real agreed upon standard.
Again, just because most of the world was influenced by the British Commonwealth's (whatever) way of doing things (of which they are backwards in other respects) doesn't mean there isn't a better way. There's a reason the US REVOLTED from such monarchistic ideals in the first place... - Eep² 21:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
I was looking to find how to ref a whole subsection from one source without having the number to <references /> in the heading or if this cool as is. Please see Geography of Texas#Resources, and point the way. Jo e I 12:19, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Capitalize the first letter only of the first word and of any proper nouns in a heading, and leave all of the other letters in lower case.
This part of the Manual of Style is WRONG. Normal English usage is to capitalise the major words of headings and sub-headings. For example, to quote section 3.39 of The United States Government Print Office Style Manual 2000:
"3.39. All principal words are capitalized in titles of addresses, articles, books, captions, chapter and part headings, editorials, essays, headings, headlines, motion pictures and plays (including television and radio programs), papers, short poems, reports, songs, subheadings, subjects, and themes. The foregoing are also quoted." [bolding of relevant words is mine]
So, we have Related Links NOT Related links being correct usage. We have other similar incorrect styles used on the Wikipedia for a long time. For article titles we have to capitalise in certain ways for disambiguation. However, for headings and sub-headings within an article normal English language rules for capitalisation of titles should be followed. David Newton 17:00, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Indeed: the Manual of Style (I have just edited the linked section to include the British rules as opposed to saying merely 'uses capitals far more widely') suggests that capitalisation should be as appropriate, and not the American version thereof – a trend which, to me, does not appear to be overly sensible. — Sinuhe 09:07, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
So, none of the above discussion explains WHY this incorrect practice started. There seems to be no justification. The 'rule' seems to have just been arbitrarily put into place. I have seen people talk about the Chicago Manual of Style for other rules for the Wikipedia, so where is the reference for this situation? David Newton 07:57, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I agree. Frankly I find that headers look odd if not capitalizing important words within them. For example "Route Summary" looks much better then "Route summary". Consequently I'm suggesting we stick with the more capitalized version and I will continue to do so in all contributions. Gateman1997 28 June 2005 07:48 (UTC)
Allow Me to Add my Voice to the Chorus of those who Believe the Current Rule is Wrong. RadioKirk 03:40, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm delighted that Wikipedia uses sentence-style case in headlines! Sentence-style case in headlines has two great practical advantages:
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:
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)
As to the question of aesthetics, which style "looks better and more appropriate", I believe that this depends entirely on what you are accustomed to and what insights you have gained in the practical advantages of either convention. Preferences for heading case seem to be very much an acquired taste.
In may case, my profound rejection of U.S. style title-case capitalization began after I realized what mess it creates in bibliographic databases, such as the awful attempt in BibTeX to encode publication titles in several conventions simultaneously. It is easy to write algorithms that convert sentence case into any of the many title case conventions, but converting back into sentence case seems like a hard AI problem, as it requires understanding of the text. So just keep the original in sentence case!
This insight was compounded when I saw scientific journal editors mess up mathematical and scientific notation in headings by applying title case to them blindly, for example
Ever since I fully realized the advantages of using sentence case in headings, I have come to look at the U.S.-style title case with a deep sense of annoyance. It has caused me great pain being forced to use title case whenever I submit something to a (usually U.S. based) publisher whose house style requires such excessive capitalization in headings. None of the U.S. style manuals quoted in the discussion above gives even the slightest justification for why we should use different rules for capitalization in headings. I can see lots of practical disadvantages, but not a single advantage. I also do not know of any other language than American English in which house-style designers do such a cruel and unusual thing to their headings.
— Markus Kuhn 15:15, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Moved from Wikipedia:Village pump
What is the policy on headers? The headers that exist on such webpages as Analytical Society seem far too large for the article. Arno 07:33 Apr 8, 2003 (UTC)
This is not true. Leaving no space will cause the text to be put directly under the heading. This was done for the country template, to facilitate:
Full article: History of Somewheria
Somewheria was first discovered ....
However, for normal headers, this looks ugly, and should be avoided IMO:
Text immediately below
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)
Moved from article by Dittaeva 13:40, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I think it looks fine, is fairly natural for users, especially those new to wikipedia (see e.g. the open directory project, which does include links in their equivalent of headers).
dml 22:44, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)
-- Nohat 05:47, 2004 Feb 26 (UTC)
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)
Regarding:
This does not seem like good practice to me, since it prevents the generation of a paragraph-opening tag, <p>
. 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 <p>
to mark it, it's text with zero structural meaning, and to me seems no better than using <font size=+4><strong>
instead of <h1>
. 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)
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)
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)
Why? Obviously, it makes a difference whether there is a space under the headline. Look at this:
Blah blah blah
and this:
Blah blah blah
I've been changing the latter to the former in many articles; now I find this page telling people to use the latter, and saying it makes no difference! Michael Hardy 22:43, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
This appears to be a non-issue now; the heading examples above (with space and without) generate identical HTML and appear the same. I've rewritten the policy on spaces after headings to state that they are completely optional, much like having one or two spaces after periods. -- Wapcaplet 19:07, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Note: I started a discussion of this long ago, and I'm not able to find it... So I'll have to start a new one here. If anyone else can find the old discussion, please tell me.
I have noticed that many pages which only have one ext lk use ==External link== as the header of that section, while others use the plural form, ==External links==. I would make a case for the latter, as the former heading is often not updated as more ext lks are added. Besides, I think the grammar is sound, since one link is to be understood as one item of external links. Any comments? --
Wernher 13:49, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
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)
If there's no policy, go with your instincts. If you want a policy, propose one! jguk 21:10, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
What about dates or years in a heading? See The Ashes. IMO it looks ugly. 19:55, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
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)
4 standard headings are listed: See also, External links, References and Footnotes. My question is, should they always appear in that order?
The text reads, "Do not vary the wording or capitalisation of these headings." I am of the opinion that we should change it to read, "Do not vary the wording, captitalization, or order of these headings."
My argument for why the order should be the same is simply convenience for the reader. If an article has any information that falls under the standard headings, the standard headings will appear in a regular order, across all articles. Currently i have observed this to be generally true, that the same ordering is used, but i would like to see this specified. Alternately, if the order does not matter, we should state that explicitly. -- Fudoreaper 00:35:52, 2005-08-04 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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:
- David Björklund ( talk) 13:35, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
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:
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? -- Spangineer es (háblame) 03:29, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
I think "Notes" after "References" often works better; for example, see gas metal arc welding. If there are multiple references from the same source, it's preferable to list the references first so that the notes can refer to them by the last name of the author. It probably depends on the actual referencing system used. -- Spangineer es (háblame) 03:18, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
In Chicago-style notes, do you even need a references section? In any case, leaving it up to the author of the aritlce is probably the best way to go. Let's wait a day or two and see if anyone disagrees, and if not, we can make the change. -- Spangineer es (háblame) 03:48, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
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 {{ subst:doctl}}) → Aza Toth 20:19, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
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)
The automatically generated TOC is great - it provides order in a document. For a large document it would be good to be able to reflect the automatically generated TOC numbers in the actual section titles appearing within the document eg (within the body) 5.1.2 network neutrality. That way readers of hardcopy versions would be able to refer to the TOC and then find the appropriate section within the hardcopy document relatively easily. To simply insert them into the section or sub-section title creates a duplication of the numbers in the TOC eg you would get 5.1.2 5.1.2
I have been unable to find any "magic words" or HTML fix to accommodate this capability. Any thoughts?
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)
How about adding the following (or something like it) to the "Wording" section, if it's correct:
-- Spiffy sperry 00:34, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
I think this new wording is in conflict with the prior paragraph. It would be common to have some parallelization, such as the following in an article about cheese:
and this new paragraph would seem to conflict. -- TreyHarris 22:07, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Thanks for your thoughts, Spangineer. Would you or do you think anyone else would oppose adding a paragraph to the MoS (headings) and/or Wikipedia:Section pages along these lines? :
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)
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)
What's the big deal about capitalizing the first letter of every word (except prepositions) in section titles? Getting sick and tired of all the stupid bots making the section titles look like sentences when they are NOT! - Eep² 06:35, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
The advantage/argument of title case is that it differentiates text from a normal
sentence, which begin with the first letter of the first word (and any
proper noun and/or
acroynm) capitalized and end with a punctuation mark (period, exclamation point, question mark, etc). Titles shouldn't be sentence-like ("This is a sentence." vs. "Sentence") because they are supposed to be brief and vague so as to inspire the reader to want to read more about it.
Just because most of the world is backwards in this respect doesn't mean it's the correct/logical way of doing things. Lots of countries drive on the wrong (left) side of the road too... - Eep² 20:38, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
If no such capitalization emphasis is needed on EVERY word (or at least non-prepositions), then why even capitalize the FIRST word's first letter? The titles are NOT sentences because they (usually) don't have ending punctuation. "External links" isn't a sentence (and would be grammatically incorrect if it were "External links.". "external links" would be a better choice but then it just looks weird which is why I prefer "External Links" since it's short enough to obviously not be confused with a sentence. Hell, why even capitalize ANYTHING then? For emphasis, one could argue--which is what a title IS (and why I capitalize all letters in a word *I* want to emphasis (except "I" since it's ALREADY capitalized so I used asterisks around it instead). Are you getting confused yet? So many different ways to emphasize words yet no real agreed upon standard.
Again, just because most of the world was influenced by the British Commonwealth's (whatever) way of doing things (of which they are backwards in other respects) doesn't mean there isn't a better way. There's a reason the US REVOLTED from such monarchistic ideals in the first place... - Eep² 21:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
I was looking to find how to ref a whole subsection from one source without having the number to <references /> in the heading or if this cool as is. Please see Geography of Texas#Resources, and point the way. Jo e I 12:19, 30 July 2006 (UTC)