Knowledge (XXG) talk:Manual of Style/Headings/Archive 1

311:", mind you). Nonetheless, I – as well as, I am certain, many others – may very well take offence if the capitalisation seen by me (us?) as proper is changed into one perceived as simply wrong. Sadly, with this rule so firmly engrained into the Manual of Style (mind the S), one is left powerless against this awful, terrible tendency of editing. Whereas I agree that it is important to be consistent, it is unreasonable to expect this from a work of so many. Besides, considering that American spellings are permitted, there is not very much consistency anyway, and for that very same reason that no one frowns (admittedly, in public) upon those spellings should capitalisation as standard in the Commonwealth of Nations be permissible. — 3447:

far more loosely defined matter, a typographic fashion really, which varies greatly between publishers. It is therefore far easier to define a single consistent house style here than would be the case with spelling. I very much appreciate that we have a clear house style here and that it is followed very consistently. And the many practical advantages of the chosen solution, as listed earlier, should really speak for themselves. (Having that said, I am nevertheless all in favor of a terrorist plot involving kidnapping the world's dictionary publishers and locking them up with limited food on a remote island until they have agreed on a single spelling for the English language ... :)

3486:, etc., and double a few consonents, and use British comma placement, but I won't be on the remote island). But Knowledge (XXG) shouldn't impose any system where there is a significant chance that many people will feel "imposed upon". Americans are, in fact, people. Many here seem to find that difficult to believe. The fact that your country has lots of McDonalds doesn't mean some sort of "let's impose on them" payback is justified (not saying this what you're thinking! but there's plenty of evidence that many Wikipedians feel that way). No one should be imposed upon. Period. It seems that's something we all should agree on. -- 3268:

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.

3303:

impose one standard on everyone, so that no one feels slighted -- but adopts a different strategy when it comes to titles: impose one standard on everyone. I move that the same general approach be applied to titles/headings as is used with spelling. I know worrying about Americans feeling slighted is not fashionable right now (because Americans are fat, or whatever), but, if it helps, please note that publishing houses in many other countries, where people are not fat, use non-sentence style capitalization for headlines. --

42: 679:

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.

2664:

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.

299:(the entire thread, even if some e-mail header references are missing). The 'British' style is British in the sense that everyone learns it in Great Britain, and, as far as I know, everywhere in Europe and quite possibly elsewhere where the English taught is Commonwealth and not American (perhaps a better term would indeed be 'Commonwealth-style capitalisation'). The discussion above may give you some idea why 135:"In regular title capitalization, also known as headline style, the first and last words and all nouns, pronouns, adjectives, verbs, adverbs, and subordinating conjunctions (if, because, as, that, etc.) are capitalized. Articles (a, an, the), coordinating conjunctions (and, but, or, for, nor), and prepositions, regardless of length, are lowercased unless they are the first or last word of the title..." 3009:'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). — 2967:

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.

2759:"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." 3250:

sentence case, because in many cases the meaning of the text must be understood to say whether a word is a proper noun or not. Therefore, if we keep in the article's source code all headings in sentence case, we still have the option one day to change the style sheet to title case and let the formatter do the conversation.

249:, also in front of me; it exclusively uses the supposedly American sentence-style, just like the Manual of Style urges. If anything I associate the initial-capitals style in publications as an American with foreign press, not American ones. It's a matter of taste, rather than of logic or nationalism. Sinuhe's edit to 3235:

need to mess around with capitalization to add an additional layer of differentiation. I'm afraid, I cannot agree at all with your assessment that "the world is backwards" in this respect. On the contrary, I very much hope that U.S. publishers will one day abandon the idea of title case. (I've seen enough garbled

3569:(Pardon delay, was away for a few days.) Your question bespeaks an odd view of Americans. Very few Americans would disagree with the above proposal. Indeed, many Americans or "American orthographists" would be happy going even further: eliminate some of the weird American spellings. (Personally, I think 3446:

This is not a spelling issue. Spelling and heading capitalization are really issues in two very different categories. Spelling rules are well known throughout the population, are applied very consistently and do not vary widely among publishers. The capitalization of headings, on the other hand, is a

3282:

You initially make a good point. I personally would certainly have no objection against a house style in which not even the first letter in a heading is capitalized routinely (i.e. "external links"). This sounds like a very practicaly and advantageous approach, and on reflection it is indeed what I

3267:

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

3234:

In my eyes (personal point of view, obviously), title case is nothing but an anachronism from the days before we had better means to emphasize headings. Today, headings are already clearly distinguished from normal text through the use of a different font type and font size. So there is no longer any

2838:

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

2663:

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

1828:

Now, in the new standard skin, this looks much better, and there is no longer a difference in the output between the versions with or without spaces, so it is no longer something for the editors to decide upon, and has much become a non-issue. I still think there could be a millimeter or two of extra

1272:

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.

755:

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

673:

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

202:

Absolutely right about the lower-case. To me, it's more elegant and aesthetic, especially here. I always hate seeing words capitalized, although the very top-level heading (title of article) might be capitalized. While I think about it, why is "Main Page" the only link under "navigation" whose second

3458:

About the world's dictionary publishers: I agree! (At least Noah Webster and Samuel Johnson!) But this issue really is, I'm afraid, more similiar to the spelling issue than you might imagine. I have lived in many countries, including the UK and the US. Virtually all Americans would look at Knowledge

3288:

I am puzzled though, why you chose to discredit your line of argument by appending an entirely unrelated political rant to an otherwise calm discussion on typographic practicalities. Given your obvious hostility towards the non-U.S. English-speaking world, you may also want to consider a more global

2966:

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

2730:

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

2694:

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

2026:

Thanks for responding so quickly (and for tracking down the previous discussions)! Now, could we formalize this by making it a poll/voting issue at the suitable wikipedia community page? I guess having me and a couple others (you) feeling a change would be nice isn't enough for actually implementing

1951:

make the change from link to links to match the number of the links, but I'm not sure that the reverse should be a universal rule. Having read the discussions that Docu pointed to, and bearing in mind how I would apply the rule to any documentation I produce at work, I am now coming round to the way

1357:

My main objection to introducing a space under the header is that it makes the wikitext more difficult to read. Without the space, the associations between the text and its header becomes clearer than if a space were introduced. I believe others have mentioned previously that the resultant rendering

678:

outlines some of the more common ones. It would be a nightmare for Knowledge (XXG) to first agree on such a complicated (and by practical necessity always incomplete) set of special capitalization rules for headings, and then train all Knowledge (XXG) users to follow it. None of this complication is

253:

makes it sound like there are firmly-engrained rules, and to set a titles capitalization style would be imperialist. That's just not true. (In fact, I'm tempted to revert Sinuhe's edit to the MoS, but I'm willing to listen to his or her arguments on the matter before doing so.) Leave it as it is;

3255:

If we actually wrote the articles using title-case headings, we would not have this choice. In that sense, using sentence case is more flexible. If there really are enough U.S. users who really can't stand sentence-case headings for some reason, we could extend the Wikimedia software to provide for

2559:

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

2307:

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

1914:

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

1765:

Funny, I can't see why you want the space after the header :) I think it dissociates the header from the content too much. If you are thinking about putting extra space before it, then you have, for example, 2 blank lines before and one blank line after - why not 1 blank line before and none after?

691:

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

601:

Please read this entire thread, and look at the archives as well. This issue has been thoroughly debated for three years, and the consensus to use sentence case has been stable that entire time. Your assertion that there is one true rule for capitalisation in the English language is simply false,

594:

I've no idea where you came up with this. I am taught this way as being the correct and standard grammar in the English language, and I live in England! The books and material all state this too. All words should be capitalised except minor prepositions and words such as 'th', 'and', and 'a(n)'. --

3249:

It is trivial to convert sentence case into title case algorithmically, because simply all but a short (to be agreed) list of words have to be capitalized, which is very easy to do in software. On the other hand, it is a very difficult natural-language processing problem to convert title case into

2648:

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.

2413:"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: 717:

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

372:

It's a style guide. There may be no reason to many of the rules here. The key thing to a style guide is consistency. It is best for us to pick one style and stick with it: so we should stick with sentence case. Personally, Capitalizing Every Second Word Just Looks Silly To Me... 05:34, 13 Dec 2004

117:

So, we have Related Links NOT Related links being correct usage. We have other similar incorrect styles used on the Knowledge (XXG) 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

3129:

rules in headings than in normal text) is a typographic fashion that is not very fashionable outside the United States. This topic has been discussed to death and there is a broad consensus for use of British/international sentence-style header capitalization in Knowledge (XXG). Please check the

3080:

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

2267:

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

3302:

I don't believe "most of the world is backwards", but Knowledge (XXG) is certainly chauvinistic if it adopts one strategy for dealing with spelling differences -- aside from topics about an area with its own preferred way of spelling, use whatever the first non-stub author used, in order not to

1862:

If there's no technical reason why we can't include spaces under the headings, then should we update the MoS? IMO, editors should be free to use either style (with or without spaces). The exception to this rule would be if an article is written using one style, then an editor cannot come in and

1178:

I don't think there is any guideline for this yet, but maybe we could figure out what is best? For the Knowledge (XXG) 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

709:

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

606:

stable rule in Knowledge (XXG) which has been debated to death, and I cannot imagine any new information that might come to light to change the consensus. Certainly "I was taught the other way" will not. (By the way, please sign and date your messages by placing --~~~~ at the end of your final

3502:

I have no objections against U.S. English spelling. And I like standardization. How about a (hypothetical) deal? Let's standardize on U.S. English spelling for Knowledge (XXG), but – in exchange – we also standardize on the following non-U.S. (international standard) conventions, which (unlike

2498:

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

408:

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 Knowledge (XXG), so where is the

330:

sentences) should use "Title Case" capitalization. I note that is almost everything else that I do, if I am not writing a complete sentence, then I usually mean the collection of words to be a title and appropriately capitalize the words. I could find no discussion of this on any of the

3271:

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...

217:(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. — 2695:

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

1891:

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. --

1390:

a good reason, but a layman like me doesn't understand it. Could someone please explain it? (That said, I don't go around adding spaces in articles, even if they were removed from stuff I've written. I'm not that kind of person. But I do use spaces myself. Pardon me for that.) --

760:

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.

1247:

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. --

434:

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

508:

I'm sorry but David Newton is absolutely correct. This is not about what people hate to see or what headlines prefer, it's about the simple fact that the first letter of all words except minor prepositions and words like 'and', 'the', and 'a(n)' in headings and titles

3289:

picture, namely the fact that title-case headings are unknown in any language other than English. This U.S. habit is really the exotic outlier here. I wonder whether its historic origin is simply the Germanic spelling convention of capitalizing every noun everywhere.

190:

Michael's comments about house style are right-on. I'm also inclined to berate you for implying that Knowledge (XXG)'s style guide should base itself on arbitrary U.S. publications that happen to coincide with your own esthetic. :-) (Some of) Us Americans... *sigh*

3581:.) Americans are far more open to change in the name of improving the world than you seem to believe. American culture is newer, more flexible. There's less to defend. I think you need to ask the parallel question of Commonweathers, especially the English. Best, 1080:

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.

227:

It shouldn't be a problem to use British capitalization when it is necessary, but the point should remain on a matter of consistency, to not permit capitalization of unnecessary words (such as "See Also", "Playing Games in the Winter Time", or what have you).

2706:

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?

3068:

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!

3283:

personally do in table-column headings and figure labels. Not capitalizing the first letter in a heading is, however, so far still a rather unusual convention. I have seen it used in some books and web pages, but these are certainly a small minority.

696:

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!

2068:

This does seem to be somewhat of an eventualist/immediatist thing - I think it should be "link" when there's one, and "links" when there are more, as that makes grammatical sense; if someone doesn't remember to update the header, someone else will,

2518:

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.

2854:

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.

1961:

Yup, "External links" because it's easier to maintain, and it doesn't have to do with how many links there are, it's just the name of the section so the plural is still correct. Sort of like having "References" even though you may only have one.

2162:(more seriously than above) For a single external link, you could probably just merge it into the text or include it with the rest of the internal links. I frequently mix it with the internal links, and split them out when a second arrives. -- 3459:(XXG)'s titles and thing they're weird. The reason you might not realize this is that (if your IP number is any guide) you're British, and in the UK, there is much less consistency than in the US (though there is a bit of variation in the US). 2570:

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.

3256:

automatic conversation based on readers' personal preferences. I hope sanity will previal and this won't be necessary, but it is certainly technically doable. However, the source article will in any case have to remain in sentence case.

2908:

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.

2354:

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 links" in Preferences/Editing).

1735:

space between paragraphs than between headers and paragraphs, seeming to connect, as I said, the header with the first paragraph only. I might be alone to think this, though, and it's nothing but a matter of aesthetics anyway, so.. --

2544:. 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. -- 2083:

Though I haven't read the archived discussion (sorry!), I think both "External link" and "External links" are acceptable styles for a section with only one link; there is also a pragmatic argument for the plural, and I think it

3111:

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!

1214:. 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 3094:. 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. — 3473:

Again, if you gave me enough time, I'm convinced I could argue that American spelling would be a far more sensible standard for Knowledge (XXG) than any other existing spelling system (though, moi, I'd get the

2097:

I much prefer having "link" where there is only one as "links" seems incorrect to me. However, I don't really mind as long as watchlists aren't messed up by changing this in thousands of articles all at once.

2839:

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. --

3349:

First of all, it's by no means just the U.S. Secondly, it's not that complicated, and, either way, that principle hasn't guided other Knowledge (XXG) style decisions. If it did, we would have mandated that

2303:

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."

2940:

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.

1373:

following it. Normally headings are used for multiple paragraphs, so this is not good. Also, in many articles there are headers immediately followed by a dot-list, and those will have a space between them

2057:. I wish early on that a different heading could have been found that would be easier to maintain; but that didn't happen and we need to try hard to keep it consistent with the number of links listed. - 686:

and similar international standards organizations, which use the same sentence-style case in headings as Knowledge (XXG). A very good choice in my humble opinion. I agree that the use of "title case" in

1369:

I do not think at all that the associations between the text and its header become clearer without the space. Quite the contrary, if there is no space I would instinctively connect the header with the

825:

A major list of links deserves such a heading, but I agree with Arno that it is a bit excessive for one or a few links, and that with just bolding it looks better (but use ' ' ' instead of < b : -->

602:

and a perusal of some of the sources that have been cited previously should convince you of that. If you remain unconvinced, I'm afraid you'll just have to live with your frustration here. This is a

1766:

But I think this dicussion is rather pointless and fruitless, we're going to go round in circles and not standardize on anything, and even if we do, everyone else is going to argue about it anyway...

2717:

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... —

177:. All publishers have house styles. To fail to follow the house style is incorrect in the context of the particular publishing house and correct in the context of a house with a different style. 2677:

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.

1096:, 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. 3415:"Most importantly, we have not really seen any plausible practical advantages and arguments in favor of title case, other than somewhat uninspiring ones along the lines of 'My copy of the 3221:

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... -

3185:

Most importantly, we have not really seen any plausible practical advantages and arguments in favor of title case, other than somewhat uninspiring ones along the lines of "My copy of the

3214:) 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 2586:

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.

2186:

more elegant camp. Eighteen months or so down the track, is there consensus on conforming to the plural form, sufficient to support the insertion of relevant comments on the main page?

1149:

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).

2500: 1440:

Regardless, with the space, a space is also visible when rendered - without it, the header is closer to the text. You can see this if you look closely at the previous examples.

713:

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

1909:

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.

721:

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

1288:

Is it just my browser, or is the Knowledge (XXG) software failing to distinguish between ===heading 2=== and ====heading 3==== headings? This is a really lame problem. See

1239:. 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? -- 945:- including a point specifically to the effect that == is the correct markup even if the result happens to look too large on your computer, followed by an explanation of why. 3528:

instead of the U.S.-habit of pulling a full stop or commas before the closing quotation mark, even if it belongs to the remaining sentence and is not part of the quoted text

2209:

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.)

547:

guides. Note that all the style guides quoted above were issued by United States publishers. Please do not confuse the peculiar in-house guidelines and fashions of say the

2344:

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 Knowledge (XXG) article.

1465:

I'm not sure you got why I italicized "paragraph", so I'll try to explain it in further detail. Point is, I can't for the life of me understand why someone would want:

3001:

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

2785:

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:

1930: 2983:

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

2038:

Please make a difference. 1 link is just a link, anything else is links. If people forget to update it, it's just as wrong as when there is 1 link under the heading

99:

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

3130:

archives for the detailed rationale behind this well-established aspect of Knowledge (XXG)'s house style. In a nutshell, the main arguments for sentence case are:

2182:

I'm not sure whether any consensus came out of this earlier discussion. As noted above, headings are simply section names, and therefore I'm in the External links

3390: 3169: 683: 572: 1863:

change all the heading spacing to match their preferred style, unless they are essentially rewriting the article from ~scratch. This closely matches the current

666:

Applying title case, as in "European Union Leaders", destoys this semantically important distinction, especially in headings, where it is customary to drop the

3036:

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

2375:

be spelled capitalization? I was under the impression that the American spelling should be used unless the article concerns a British or European topic. --

1111:

What, and form a Knowledge (XXG) Manual of Style brigade? :) Sounds cool, but I thought WikiProjects were dedicated to information, and not just formatting?

1188:

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. --

575:, to name just a few. Knowledge (XXG)'s heading style does not violate English grammar, it just avoids one particular, less practical, regional typographic 417:

Doesn't make any sense to me either. Possibly it's in the archives or the history. If you'd like to see the style changed on this, I'd go along with you.

245:

in front of me; it uses the supposedly British all-capitals style (in major headlines; minor headlines are sentence-style). I'm comparing it to British

3154:(name), which is a very desirable property, especially in scientific and encyclopedic works, and which can reduce ambiguity (e.g. "A nice woman" vs. "A 2409:

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

1349:

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!

21: 989:

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:

920:

I do not feel that these are excessive. The headlines would look much better it they followed the style guide though, avoiding capitalization. --

2379: 846:

states that ==External Links== is the perferred header. (As a matter of taste and consistency, I perfer using this header even for a single link)

2372: 647:"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: 2308:

same ordering is used, but i would like to see this specified. Alternately, if the order does not matter, we should state that explicitly. --

1060:

the ideal state of affairs, is this explicitly stated somewhere? I have searched but have been unable to locate anything appropriate. If this

968:

An afterthought to all this, I'm sure how I managed to miss 10baset's aswer before. But the headers are still too large, in my firm opinion.

392:

That's Why We Don't Do It With Every Word In A Sentence, Just With Titles Due To The Fact That Titles Tend To Be Shorter Than Full Sentences

326:

It appears that none of this talk above explains the use of "Sentence case" in headlines, which in the way they stand by themselves (and are

106:"3.39. All principal words are capitalized in titles of addresses, articles, books, captions, chapter and part headings, editorials, essays, 2202: 151:

Our "incorrect" and "wrong" convention is in fact used in many places outside Knowledge (XXG). To name two examples, BBC News and CNN.com.

3024:

Thanks for your thoughts, Spangineer. Would you or do you think anyone else would oppose adding a paragraph to the MoS (headings) and/or

1797:

No Jao, you are not alone, it makes sense. I think two blank lines before and one blank line after the header are best in the edit box.--

2981:

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?

897:

of the above answers answer my original question. What policy states that all the headers have to be excessively large - ie H2 size?

813:

No, it was exactly right before you changed it: ==External links== is the standard header for an external links section of an article.

2004: 338:

title, then use title case. If it is not, adhere to the sentence case rule, regardless of whether it's a "complete sentence" or not.

1186:

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.

2884: 2321: 1935: 58: 17: 2139:

a link directory. Links should not be added for the sake of adding them, but because they genuinely add something to the article.

2962:

I changed the country headings (under "Other countries") to proper headings level two headings (i.e. "==="). These were promptly

1952:

of thinking that the use of plural should be standard. Unusually, given my pedanticism on matters lexicographal, I am flexible!

1264:

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.--

1040:

apparently has no trouble with this and just ignores the "hidden" level for the purpose of numbering the Sections; they start at

628:

that Knowledge (XXG) uses sentence-style case in headlines! Sentence-style case in headlines has two great practical advantages:

254:

there's no good reason to change it, changing it would be a big pain, and this is one easy place to gain a little consistency. --

559:. There are plenty of well-respected publishers that use the same standard English heading case as Knowledge (XXG), for example 2473:

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:

2136: 552: 2451: 1358:

of the text, with the space removed, is typographically better somehow than the rendering of the text with the text in place.

3401:, and lots of other highly respected English-language publishers world-wide use sentence-case headings in their house style." 3180:, and lots of other highly respected English-language publishers world-wide use sentence-case headings in their house style. 2228:

tee hee. Nice one, Maurreen! (I think that titles in headings should be italicized, though.) ] 23:21, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

27: 3375:

works (i.e., which words exactly are to be capitalized), and there is no clear advantage gained from using any of them";

3147:

works (i.e., which words exactly are to be capitalized), and there is no clear advantage gained from using any of them;

2924: 2387: 1077: 942: 843: 250: 214: 110:, headlines, motion pictures and plays (including television and radio programs), papers, short poems, reports, songs, 3601:

I was looking to find how to ref a whole subsection from one source without having the number to <references /: -->

3354:

always be spelled with the Shakespeare/American spelling because it is "easier to explain" why you have to remove the

1947:

Well, up till now I have always made it 'link' if there is only one, and 'links' if there are more than one. I would

1414:

following it." -- then we would be in vehement agreement then ;) What we are discussing whether a space should exist:

548: 2320:

The guidelines on left and right floating TOCs now linked to from the page were a result of discussion and a poll at

331:

above-linked pages--perhaps they have been changed in the intervening five months? —Bradley 00:03, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

2530:

Agree completely. I'll add that having "Notes" before "References" seems to be rather more common than vice versa.

3585: 3490: 3434: 3307: 49: 3070: 890: 3556:

I am actually very curious, what percentage of U.S.-American Wikipedians would consider such a deal acceptable.

2928: 1026: 835:

Paul is right. "External links" is a header, specifically an H2 header. Therefore that is the correct markup. --

780: 513:

be capitalised. Knowledge (XXG) is not a newspaper, and should follow the grammar rules of the English language.

3622: 3560: 3495: 3451: 3439: 3312: 3293: 3276: 3260: 3225: 3195: 3116: 3098: 3085: 3074: 3055: 3018: 2995: 2971: 2945: 2935: 2917: 2891: 2879: 2859: 2843: 2832: 2779: 2769: 2740: 2721: 2711: 2681: 2668: 2657: 2637: 2627: 2590: 2580: 2564: 2553: 2534: 2523: 2512: 2462: 2444: 2398: 2359: 2348: 2334: 2190: 1837: 1801: 1770: 1740: 1444: 1395: 1277: 1139: 768: 704: 611: 583: 500: 453: 207: 1093: 241:

I don't understand why there's this sense that it's an American/British thing. I have a copy of the American

3503:

British spelling) all have rather clear practical and logical advantages over the corresponding U.S. habits:

3612: 3416: 3186: 1386:

reason to get rid of the spaces, by all means I can accept it. Perhaps that "typographical rendering" thing

3048:, however, should be reserved for collections of information that are of a more humorous or quirky nature. 2520: 2324:, and should be considered to have achieved consensus as guideliens, IMO. the discussion was advertised at 999: 2605:

are encouraged to be used, this for the ability to separate documentation and discussion, and allow using

1210:

This does not seem like good practice to me, since it prevents the generation of a paragraph-opening tag,

3371:"there are many different and conflicting rules in use among U.S. publishers with regard to how exactly 3582: 3487: 3448: 3431: 3304: 3143:

there are many different and conflicting rules in use among U.S. publishers with regard to how exactly

2698:

I have been unable to find any "magic words" or HTML fix to accommodate this capability. Any thoughts?

2541: 2075: 1205:

Note that with the == brackets used, no space under the headline is needed. The space should be removed.

984:

Note that with the == brackets used, no space under the headline is needed. The space should be removed.

3557: 596: 522: 447:

titles -- section titles. I think that using title case for them is far more natural and looks better.

3290: 2392:

For the English Knowledge (XXG), there is no preference among the major national varieties of English.

3519: 3013: 2735: 2575: 2548: 2507: 3025: 2610: 2587: 2561: 2531: 2273: 425: 957:

Ah, an answer. Thanks, Paul. Methinks that the end result is still too big and excessive, though.

478:] uses title case in its own headings, but the free section does not explicitly discuss the issue. 3617: 3603: 3406:

And lots of other publications don't use sentence-case headings. Same with how some people spell

2840: 2766: 2753:

How about adding the following (or something like it) to the "Wording" section, if it's correct:

2356: 2332: 1350: 1289: 1222:

have adverse effects for some browsers. It still validates, because plain text is allowed inside

1152: 799: 787: 643:

Valuable information would be destroyed if we followed the practice of many U.S. publishers, who

451: 178: 3344:

to explain if people were not confused by past exposure to some U.S. publishers' house styles)";

2395: 2155:

For just one link, I think having a heading at all is overkill. Just say "External link: " --

292:

I apologise for not having replied sooner: I was on holiday without much access to the Internet.

3273: 3222: 3140:

to explain if people were not confused by past exposure to some U.S. publishers' house styles);

3113: 1975:

I vote for always using ==External links==. It is the most consistent all-around, as you just

3052: 2992: 2873: 2621: 2459: 2244: 2170: 2156: 2011: 1876: 1069: 410: 393: 196: 156: 141: 119: 3462:

My main concern here, however, is that I see no evidence of a consensus having been reached.

2410: 3394: 3257: 3192: 3173: 2708: 2665: 2345: 2143: 2102: 2089: 2072: 1868: 1410:"Quite the contrary, if there is no space I would instinctively connect the header with the 765: 701: 580: 560: 436: 204: 2325: 2169:

My idea is quite serious, and it doesn't lead to any confusion like your solution does. --

3082: 3010: 2932: 2888: 2856: 2829: 2732: 2678: 2654: 2650: 2572: 2545: 2504: 2439: 2309: 1984: 1864: 836: 608: 556: 274: 255: 1230:

to mark it, it's text with zero structural meaning, and to me seems no better than using

1032:

I'm seeing a lot of pages where the Header hierarchy starts with a second-level Header (

3525: 3126: 3095: 3006: 2959: 2942: 2914: 2776: 2718: 2269: 2236: 2210: 1967: 1893: 1767: 1441: 1359: 1274: 1257: 1240: 1112: 1082: 675: 659: 644: 543:

are tought! All that has been quoted here so far are typographic regional fashions and

497: 496:

Allow Me to Add my Voice to the Chorus of those who Believe the Current Rule is Wrong.

339: 296: 229: 467: 3607: 3535: 3531: 3506: 3398: 3337: 3323:

Note, furthermore, the arguments cited in favor of the decision are mostly incorrect:

3177: 3133: 2376: 2329: 2218: 1189: 1130: 1097: 872: 847: 748: 682:

To those asking for authoritative references, I can point at all publications of the

568: 564: 473: 448: 418: 354: 2989:

I suggest (what I hope is) a more neutral term such as "Miscellany" for general use.

2987:(this is the most recent example I've come across, which I've managed to edit out). 2868: 2634: 2616: 2455: 2028: 1920: 1872: 1798: 1292: 1265: 1249: 827: 487: 192: 152: 3202:

The advantage/argument of title case is that it differentiates text from a normal

1313:

brackets used, no space under the headline is needed. The space should be removed.

3218:

to be brief and vague so as to inspire the reader to want to read more about it.

2452:

Knowledge (XXG) talk:Verifiability#References/external links name-change proposal

2243:

If there's no policy, go with your instincts. If you want a policy, propose one!

461: 3244:

If none of this convinces you, here is another very good case for sentence case:

3207: 3151: 2140: 2099: 2054: 2043: 1931:

Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/External_links#External_links_-or-_External_Links

949: 817: 633: 544: 312: 218: 174: 57:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

3510: 3372: 3144: 2968: 2434: 1980: 1953: 1169: 752: 667: 270: 3090:

Although the link does work fine from the TOC and if entered in a link using

2235:

So, does anyone else have an opinion on this? I'm still not sure what to do.

3541: 3422:

There are no plausible practical advantages and arguments in favor spelling

2256: 2187: 2058: 1963: 1037: 969: 958: 921: 898: 858: 791: 3466:

of a consensus have been made, but that's not the same thing. Someone just

636:(names) get from being capitalized (a "god" versus the one and only "God"); 488:

National Library of Medicine Recommended Formats for Bibliographic Citation

481: 786:

What is the policy on headers? The headers that exist on such webpages as

353:

The question is not "What is the rule?" but "Why is the rule what it is?"

3545: 3203: 3163: 2163: 2121: 2116:

go look for a second one, obviating the need to ever include the heading

1834: 1737: 1392: 1008:

However, for normal headers, this looks ugly, and should be avoided IMO:

937:

Arno, the policy for Knowledge (XXG) section headings is laid out in the

693: 2931:

already make this clear. Feel free to add pointers to this, however. --

2540:

I think "Notes" after "References" often works better; for example, see

1437:

is, that would associate the header strongly with the text following it.

3211: 540: 3239:

output due to title case to have the slightest sympathy for the idea.)

658:"European Union leaders" means "the leaders of the organization named 3236: 2454:, which proposes to make some changes to these recommended headings. 714: 651:"European union leaders" means "the leaders of some trade/labor/etc. 458:

Here are some indications from online style guides of various sorts:

3340:

is much easier to understand and explain (in fact, there would be

3136:

is much easier to understand and explain (in fact, there would be

2904:

I have noticed quite a few articles that start with headings, see

2217:

I lean toward agreement, but I lean away from italics in general.

1379: 652: 3419:

says so, so it must be the correct way, don't really know why.'"

893:

as another example where excessively large headlines exist. Also

3159: 3155: 1138:

A. This is already violated in lots of places, especially lists

1044:

and continue. However if someone appends a further Section (say

118:

language rules for capitalisation of titles should be followed.

87: 3206:, which begin with the first letter of the first word (and any 3189:

says so, so it must be the correct way, don't really know why."

1936:

Wikipedia_talk:Guide_to_Layout#External_link_vs._External_links

90:

in a heading, and leave all of the other letters in lower case.

1659:

it. But I would be much more happy if this could be done like:

576: 140:

That is certainly contrary to the 'rule' for Knowledge (XXG).

86:

Capitalize the first letter only of the first word and of any

36: 2388:

Knowledge (XXG):Manual of Style#National varieties of English

1979:

that people will forget to update the list with a plural. --

1378:, so it looks more consistent with the space. That's just my 2300:. My question is, should they always appear in that order? 2005:

Knowledge (XXG) talk:Boilerplate text#External links or link

1327:

whether there is a space under the headline. Look at this:

443:

I want to propose changing this. In my view section headers

3515: 1998:

If anyone else can find the old discussion, please tell me.

539:

in English grammar. At least none that English students in

101:

The United States Government Print Office Style Manual 2000

3150:

sentence case preserves information about which word is a

798:

What headers are those, then? There aren't any headers in

303:

might be using sentence-style capitalisation (although it

3426:"favour", and, many contend, few in favor of spelling it 2913:). Can we add a brief sentence to discourge this? thanks 114:, subjects, and themes. The foregoing are also quoted." 28:

Knowledge (XXG) talk:Manual of Style (headings)/Archive 1

2601:

On template talk pages I suggest that sections of level

3430:. This is why it was decided that both are acceptable. 2984: 2963: 2910: 2905: 2501:

Knowledge (XXG):Featured article candidates/Céline Dion

674:

words in a title should be capitalized. The article on

670:

that could preserve at least some of this distinction.

470:

uses sentance case, but all hadings are full sentances;

424:

Yes, let's start a vote somewhere. This is ridiculous.

2322:

Knowledge (XXG) talk:Manual of Style#Template:TOCright

802:- although the bit at the bottom that says <b: --> 2597:

Exception of the rule to use == as top level section

2112:

I think that whenever there is one link, you should

747:

Ever since I fully realized the advantages of using

857:==External links==, with a lower case ell, please. 751:in headings, I have come to look at the U.S.-style 482:

American Anthropological Association citation guide

3602:in the heading or if this cool as is. Please see 1164:==Spaces in headers== or == Spaces in headers == ? 1056:Section which is confusing. Assuming that this is 3551:no em-dashes – only en-dashes surrounded by space 2828:and this new paragraph would seem to conflict. -- 2088:slightly better, so I think we should use that. 1915:is sound, since one link is to be understood as 1309:" (that's two equal signs). Note that with the 3091: 2499:opinion. It would appear that a few people on 2259:. IMO it looks ugly. 19:55, May 23, 2005 (UTC) 1833:the headings, but that's a lesser question. -- 3125:Title case (i.e., the idea of using different 2775:The capitalization part needs a bug report? — 1651:see, however, the point in wanting more space 1064:incorrect, is there an easy way to seek & 684:International Organization for Standardization 2609:to add a new section under discussion (see {{ 8: 3544:all-numeric date notation (yyyy-mm-dd) à la 2255:What about dates or years in a heading? See 725:turning mV (millivolts) into MV (megavolts), 620:Advantages of the current sentence-case rule 269:Agreed. You said it better than I could. -- 173:is incorrect according to Knowledge (XXG)'s 3005:trivial (madeup example: Did you know that 1707:This is the second paragraph about history. 1623:This is the second paragraph about history. 1521:This is the second paragraph about history. 3470:their will on the group. That's worrisome. 2328:and at the village pump for over a month. 1699:This is the first paragraph about history. 1596:This is the first paragraph about history. 1494:This is the first paragraph about history. 1433:or not. Indeed, if no space existed where 1256:Sweet. I will not worry about it then. -- 2042:. IMHO, both cases need to be corrected. 2633:I agree, templates are a special case.-- 639:it is easy to understand and agree upon. 1196:Spaces between header and section text? 1068:correct or do we just keep an eye out? 1145:B. What users have problems with this? 692:really nothing but an archaic form of 55:Do not edit the contents of this page. 3081:fixed, we could revisit the issue. -- 1005:Somewheria was first discovered .... 7: 2885:Knowledge (XXG):Talk page guidelines 790:seem far too large for the article. 490:uses title case in its own headings. 484:uses title case in its own headings. 464:reccomends title case for headlines; 18:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Manual of Style 3534:notation (not U.S.-style a.m./p.m. 297:this discussion in the mailing list 3509:in headings instead of U.S.-style 2503:would agree with me. Thoughts? -- 2197:Titles italicized within headings? 1092:However, this can be usefull in a 632:it preserves the distinction that 475:The Columbia Guide to Online Style 35: 3518:units (metric system) instead of 2923:I don't think it's necessary, as 2900:Articles that start with headings 2702:"References" vs. "External links" 2865:Where should it be placed then? 2284:4 standard headings are listed: 40: 2925:Knowledge (XXG):Guide to layout 1927:For previous discussions, see: 1078:Knowledge (XXG):Manual of Style 943:Knowledge (XXG):Manual of style 844:Knowledge (XXG):Manual_of_style 553:U.S. Government Printing Office 3548:instead of U.S.-style mm/dd/yy 2644:What about full stop (period)? 409:reference for this situation? 1: 2972:23:15, 28 February 2006 (UTC) 2844:14:55, 14 February 2006 (UTC) 2712:17:37, 29 December 2005 (UTC) 2669:17:46, 29 December 2005 (UTC) 2658:11:13, 21 December 2005 (UTC) 2638:03:12, 10 December 2005 (UTC) 2535:23:24, 30 November 2005 (UTC) 2524:23:17, 30 November 2005 (UTC) 2513:03:29, 28 November 2005 (UTC) 2463:14:07, 27 November 2005 (UTC) 2445:13:35, 27 November 2005 (UTC) 2399:17:38, 19 November 2005 (UTC) 2381:05:06, 15 November 2005 (UTC) 2280:Ordering of standard headings 2191:03:16, 21 December 2005 (UTC) 1284:Rendering of level 3 headings 769:15:15, 30 December 2005 (UTC) 705:16:51, 29 December 2005 (UTC) 584:19:24, 31 December 2005 (UTC) 501:03:40, 11 December 2005 (UTC) 3604:Geography of Texas#Resources 3573:is questionable, so long as 2946:14:28, 29 January 2006 (UTC) 2936:14:14, 29 January 2006 (UTC) 2929:Knowledge (XXG):Lead section 2918:11:35, 29 January 2006 (UTC) 2892:22:01, 28 January 2006 (UTC) 2880:16:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC) 2860:16:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC) 2833:22:07, 28 January 2006 (UTC) 2780:14:31, 28 January 2006 (UTC) 2741:16:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC) 2722:15:24, 19 January 2006 (UTC) 2628:20:19, 9 December 2005 (UTC) 2591:03:55, 1 December 2005 (UTC) 2581:03:48, 1 December 2005 (UTC) 2565:03:28, 1 December 2005 (UTC) 2554:03:18, 1 December 2005 (UTC) 2349:22:09, 21 October 2005 (UTC) 1027:Knowledge (XXG):Village pump 781:Knowledge (XXG):Village pump 756:slightest justification for 454:16:27, 3 November 2005 (UTC) 208:22:06, 21 October 2005 (UTC) 3410:"color", and some "colour". 3092:#Italics in section headers 3028:pages along these lines? : 2850:Reverted template talk text 2770:00:34, 1 January 2006 (UTC) 2682:01:15, 3 January 2006 (UTC) 2360:00:10, 1 January 2006 (UTC) 2335:23:06, 12 August 2005 (UTC) 2312:00:35:52, 2005-08-04 (UTC) 1917:one item of external links. 1683:This is an intro paragraph. 1382:, though, and if there's a 1052:), this appears as another 871:I stand corrected - thanks. 718:original in sentence case! 612:13:59, 2 January 2006 (UTC) 549:University of Chicago Press 3638: 3099:21:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC) 3086:20:51, 31 March 2006 (UTC) 3075:20:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC) 3056:01:19, 26 March 2006 (UTC) 3019:00:37, 26 March 2006 (UTC) 2996:22:46, 25 March 2006 (UTC) 2690:TOC and Numbering Sections 1278:01:51, 18 March 2006 (UTC) 1072:12:16, Dec 12, 2003 (UTC) 81:Capitalization in headings 3623:12:19, 30 July 2006 (UTC) 3496:18:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC) 3452:18:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC) 3440:18:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC) 3313:18:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC) 2958:Hi. On the article about 2954:When to not use headings? 2276:09:18, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC) 2247:21:10, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC) 2213:01:01, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC) 2166:03:14, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC) 2159:17:52, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC) 2146:02:43, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC) 2105:06:10, Jul 26, 2004 (UTC) 1970:15:27, Jul 24, 2004 (UTC) 1923:13:49, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC) 1896:19:07, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC) 1353:22:43, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC) 1323:? Obviously, it makes a 1295:23:24, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC) 1268:13:38, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC) 1218:.) Minor, I know, but it 1192:12:57, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC) 1172:05:47, 2004 Feb 26 (UTC) 1155:22:44, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC) 891:United Airlines flight 93 803:External links</b: --> 439:28 June 2005 07:48 (UTC) 221:09:07, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC) 199:21:37, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC) 3561:18:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC) 3294:10:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC) 3277:21:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC) 3261:21:07, 26 May 2006 (UTC) 3226:20:38, 26 May 2006 (UTC) 3196:10:20, 26 May 2006 (UTC) 3117:06:35, 26 May 2006 (UTC) 3032:Trivia, Miscellany, etc. 2653:for an example of this. 2239:20:27, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC) 2221:21:34, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC) 2173:19:59, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC) 2124:04:37, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC) 2092:00:12, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC) 2078:17:16, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC) 2061:16:25, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC) 2046:16:11, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC) 2031:16:42, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC) 2014:15:59, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC) 1987:15:29, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC) 1956:14:48, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC) 1879:14:46, Jul 8, 2004 (UTC) 1838:00:44, 30 May 2004 (UTC) 1802:09:12, 27 May 2004 (UTC) 1771:22:39, 26 May 2004 (UTC) 1741:08:30, 18 May 2004 (UTC) 1445:23:27, 17 May 2004 (UTC) 1396:19:26, 17 May 2004 (UTC) 1362:04:22, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC) 1260:12:41 30 Jun 2003 (UTC) 1243:12:34 30 Jun 2003 (UTC) 1140:List of reference tables 1115:23:02, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC) 1100:14:07, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC) 1085:12:32, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC) 794:07:33 Apr 8, 2003 (UTC) 468:CMS styled example psper 462:The Yale Web style guide 428:15:09, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC) 421:08:08, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC) 413:07:57, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC) 357:03:59, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC) 342:03:22, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC) 277:02:18, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC) 258:20:20, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC) 232:14:41, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC) 181:02:12, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC) 159:01:22, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC) 122:17:00, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC) 3417:Chicago Manual of Style 3362:when adding the suffix 3187:Chicago Manual of Style 3026:Knowledge (XXG):Section 1252:12:38 30 Jun 2003 (UTC) 1133:13:40, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC) 1016:Text immediately below 972:09:17 24 Jun 2003 (UTC) 961:09:10 Apr 9, 2003 (UTC) 952:08:52 Apr 9, 2003 (UTC) 924:08:30 Apr 9, 2003 (UTC) 901:07:59 Apr 9, 2003 (UTC) 850:04:56 Apr 9, 2003 (UTC) 830:09:26 Apr 8, 2003 (UTC) 820:07:47 Apr 8, 2003 (UTC) 810:(looks at edit history) 396:01:44, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC) 315:06:21, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC) 144:17:40, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC) 128:Chicago Manual of Style 3606:, and point the way. 3590:2006-07-10 21:44 (UTC) 2371:Shouldn't the heading 2137:Knowledge (XXG) is not 1226:blocks, but without a 1129:Moved from article by 295:You may fancy reading 126:Further, to quote the 2542:gas metal arc welding 2380:_Capitalization": --> 2366:Capitalisation -: --> 1703:<normal space: --> 1695:<normal space: --> 1299:Space under headlines 1232:<font size=+4: --> 1000:History of Somewheria 203:word is capitalized? 53:of past discussions. 3577:can't be changed to 3520:U.S. customary units 2201:My instinct is that 1871:decision process. -- 1687:<extra space: --> 1124:Links within headers 1048:) at the top level ( 3524:logical/gramatical 2731:in that section. -- 2560:sections flexible. 2205:in headings should 1731:rather than having 3064:in section headers 2469:Order of headings? 2263:Special characters 1290:Energy development 800:Analytical Society 788:Analytical Society 2443: 1655:the heading than 1159:Spaces in headers 78: 77: 65: 64: 59:current talk page 26:(Redirected from 3629: 3620: 3615: 3610: 3597:Refs in headings 3583:Cultural Freedom 3488:Cultural Freedom 3432:Cultural Freedom 3380:There are a few 3305:Cultural Freedom 3162:company" vs. "A 3016: 2977:"Trivia" heading 2876: 2871: 2738: 2624: 2619: 2578: 2551: 2521:Hollow Wilerding 2510: 2437: 2340:Remove edit tag? 1919:Any comments? -- 1904:vs External link 1238: 1234: 1229: 1225: 1217: 1213: 74: 67: 66: 44: 43: 37: 31: 3637: 3636: 3632: 3631: 3630: 3628: 3627: 3626: 3618: 3613: 3608: 3599: 3526:quotation marks 3158:woman", "A new 3109: 3066: 3034: 3014: 2979: 2956: 2902: 2878: 2874: 2869: 2852: 2751: 2749:Repeated titles 2736: 2704: 2692: 2651:Coins of Cyprus 2646: 2626: 2622: 2617: 2599: 2576: 2549: 2508: 2471: 2435:David Björklund 2426:Further reading 2407: 2405:Further reading 2369: 2342: 2318: 2282: 2268:suggestions. -- 2265: 2253: 2199: 1906: 1346:Blah blah blah 1344: 1342:headline (test) 1335:Blah blah blah 1333: 1331:headline (test) 1301: 1286: 1236: 1233:<strong: --> 1231: 1227: 1223: 1215: 1211: 1198: 1161: 1126: 1022: 1020:Header protocol 1014: 995: 776: 622: 557:English grammar 537:is no such rule 251:Manual of Style 215:Manual of Style 130:, 14th Edition: 97: 83: 70: 41: 33: 32: 25: 24: 12: 11: 5: 3635: 3633: 3598: 3595: 3594: 3593: 3592: 3591: 3564: 3563: 3554: 3553: 3552: 3549: 3539: 3529: 3522: 3513: 3500: 3499: 3498: 3471: 3460: 3456: 3455: 3454: 3444: 3443: 3442: 3413: 3412: 3411: 3403: 3402: 3386: 3385: 3377: 3376: 3368: 3367: 3346: 3345: 3327: 3326: 3325: 3324: 3318: 3317: 3316: 3315: 3297: 3296: 3285: 3284: 3266: 3264: 3263: 3252: 3251: 3246: 3245: 3241: 3240: 3230: 3201: 3199: 3198: 3190: 3183: 3182: 3181: 3167: 3148: 3141: 3127:capitalization 3121: 3108: 3107:Capitalization 3105: 3104: 3103: 3102: 3101: 3065: 3059: 3044:. The heading 3033: 3030: 3022: 3021: 2990: 2988: 2982: 2978: 2975: 2960:The Apprentice 2955: 2952: 2951: 2950: 2949: 2948: 2901: 2898: 2897: 2896: 2895: 2894: 2887:, probably? -- 2866: 2851: 2848: 2847: 2846: 2826: 2825: 2824: 2823: 2822: 2821: 2818: 2812: 2811: 2810: 2807: 2801: 2800: 2799: 2796: 2783: 2782: 2763: 2762: 2761: 2760: 2750: 2747: 2746: 2745: 2744: 2743: 2725: 2724: 2703: 2700: 2691: 2688: 2687: 2686: 2685: 2684: 2672: 2671: 2645: 2642: 2641: 2640: 2614: 2598: 2595: 2594: 2593: 2588:Kirill Lokshin 2568: 2567: 2562:Kirill Lokshin 2538: 2537: 2532:Kirill Lokshin 2527: 2526: 2496: 2495: 2493:External links 2490: 2485: 2480: 2470: 2467: 2466: 2465: 2431: 2430: 2427: 2424: 2423:External links 2421: 2418: 2406: 2403: 2402: 2401: 2373:capitalisation 2368: 2367:Capitalization 2364: 2363: 2362: 2341: 2338: 2317: 2316:TOC guidelines 2314: 2290:External links 2281: 2278: 2264: 2261: 2252: 2249: 2241: 2240: 2232: 2231: 2230: 2229: 2223: 2222: 2198: 2195: 2194: 2193: 2179: 2178: 2177: 2176: 2175: 2174: 2152: 2151: 2150: 2149: 2148: 2147: 2128: 2127: 2126: 2125: 2107: 2106: 2094: 2093: 2080: 2079: 2070: 2065: 2064: 2063: 2062: 2048: 2047: 2035: 2034: 2033: 2032: 2027:the change. -- 2021: 2020: 2016: 2015: 2008: 2007: 2001: 2000: 1994: 1993: 1989: 1988: 1972: 1971: 1958: 1957: 1944: 1943: 1940: 1939: 1938: 1933: 1913: 1905: 1898: 1889: 1888: 1887: 1886: 1885: 1884: 1883: 1882: 1881: 1880: 1851: 1850: 1849: 1848: 1847: 1846: 1845: 1844: 1843: 1842: 1841: 1840: 1815: 1814: 1813: 1812: 1811: 1810: 1809: 1808: 1807: 1806: 1805: 1804: 1784: 1783: 1782: 1781: 1780: 1779: 1778: 1777: 1776: 1775: 1774: 1773: 1752: 1751: 1750: 1749: 1748: 1747: 1746: 1745: 1744: 1743: 1720: 1719: 1718: 1717: 1716: 1715: 1714: 1713: 1712: 1711: 1710: 1709: 1704: 1701: 1696: 1693: 1688: 1685: 1669: 1668: 1667: 1666: 1665: 1664: 1663: 1662: 1661: 1660: 1636: 1635: 1634: 1633: 1632: 1631: 1630: 1629: 1628: 1627: 1626: 1625: 1609: 1608: 1607: 1606: 1605: 1604: 1603: 1602: 1601: 1600: 1599: 1598: 1582: 1581: 1580: 1579: 1578: 1577: 1576: 1575: 1574: 1573: 1572: 1571: 1555: 1554: 1553: 1552: 1551: 1550: 1549: 1548: 1547: 1546: 1534: 1533: 1532: 1531: 1530: 1529: 1528: 1527: 1526: 1525: 1524: 1523: 1507: 1506: 1505: 1504: 1503: 1502: 1501: 1500: 1499: 1498: 1497: 1496: 1491: 1475: 1474: 1473: 1472: 1471: 1470: 1469: 1468: 1467: 1466: 1454: 1453: 1452: 1451: 1450: 1449: 1448: 1447: 1438: 1431: 1430:text text text 1428: 1423: 1420: 1418: 1417:text text text 1415: 1401: 1400: 1399: 1398: 1364: 1363: 1343: 1340: 1332: 1329: 1316: 1315: 1312: 1308: 1300: 1297: 1285: 1282: 1281: 1280: 1262: 1254: 1253: 1208: 1207: 1197: 1194: 1187: 1184: 1183: 1182: 1181: 1180: 1166: 1165: 1160: 1157: 1147: 1146: 1143: 1125: 1122: 1121: 1120: 1119: 1118: 1117: 1116: 1104: 1103: 1102: 1101: 1087: 1086: 1046:External Links 1021: 1018: 1013: 1012:Caption (test) 1010: 998:Full article: 994: 993:History (test) 991: 987: 986: 979: 977: 976: 975: 974: 973: 963: 962: 954: 953: 946: 939:Headline style 934: 933: 932: 931: 930: 929: 928: 927: 926: 925: 909: 908: 907: 906: 905: 904: 903: 902: 880: 879: 878: 877: 876: 875: 864: 863: 862: 861: 852: 851: 840: 839: 832: 831: 822: 821: 814: 811: 808: 775: 772: 745: 744: 741: 726: 676:capitalization 664: 663: 660:European Union 656: 641: 640: 637: 621: 618: 617: 616: 615: 614: 607:paragraph.) -- 591: 590: 589: 588: 587: 586: 528: 527: 526: 525: 517: 516: 515: 514: 494: 493: 492: 491: 485: 479: 471: 465: 456: 435:contributions. 432: 431: 430: 429: 406: 405: 404: 403: 402: 401: 400: 399: 398: 397: 381: 380: 379: 378: 377: 376: 375: 374: 363: 362: 361: 360: 359: 358: 346: 345: 344: 343: 323: 322: 321: 320: 319: 318: 317: 316: 293: 283: 282: 281: 280: 279: 278: 262: 261: 260: 259: 236: 235: 234: 233: 211: 210: 200: 187: 186: 185: 184: 183: 182: 163: 162: 161: 160: 146: 145: 137: 136: 132: 131: 96: 93: 82: 79: 76: 75: 63: 62: 45: 34: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3634: 3625: 3624: 3621: 3616: 3611: 3605: 3596: 3589: 3588: 3584: 3580: 3576: 3572: 3568: 3567: 3566: 3565: 3562: 3559: 3555: 3550: 3547: 3543: 3540: 3537: 3536:12-hour clock 3533: 3532:24-hour clock 3530: 3527: 3523: 3521: 3517: 3514: 3512: 3508: 3507:sentence case 3505: 3504: 3501: 3497: 3494: 3493: 3489: 3485: 3481: 3477: 3472: 3469: 3465: 3461: 3457: 3453: 3450: 3449:128.232.8.250 3445: 3441: 3438: 3437: 3433: 3429: 3425: 3421: 3420: 3418: 3414: 3409: 3405: 3404: 3400: 3399:New Scientist 3396: 3392: 3388: 3387: 3383: 3379: 3378: 3374: 3370: 3369: 3365: 3361: 3357: 3353: 3348: 3347: 3343: 3339: 3338:sentence case 3335: 3334: 3333: 3332: 3331: 3330: 3329: 3328: 3322: 3321: 3320: 3319: 3314: 3311: 3310: 3306: 3301: 3300: 3299: 3298: 3295: 3292: 3287: 3286: 3281: 3280: 3279: 3278: 3275: 3269: 3262: 3259: 3254: 3253: 3248: 3247: 3243: 3242: 3238: 3233: 3232: 3231: 3228: 3227: 3224: 3219: 3217: 3213: 3209: 3205: 3197: 3194: 3191: 3188: 3184: 3179: 3178:New Scientist 3175: 3171: 3168: 3165: 3161: 3157: 3153: 3149: 3146: 3142: 3139: 3135: 3134:sentence case 3132: 3131: 3128: 3124: 3123: 3122: 3119: 3118: 3115: 3106: 3100: 3097: 3093: 3089: 3088: 3087: 3084: 3079: 3078: 3077: 3076: 3072: 3063: 3060: 3058: 3057: 3054: 3049: 3047: 3043: 3039: 3031: 3029: 3027: 3020: 3017: 3012: 3008: 3004: 3000: 2999: 2998: 2997: 2994: 2986: 2976: 2974: 2973: 2970: 2965: 2961: 2953: 2947: 2944: 2939: 2938: 2937: 2934: 2930: 2926: 2922: 2921: 2920: 2919: 2916: 2912: 2907: 2899: 2893: 2890: 2886: 2883: 2882: 2881: 2877: 2872: 2864: 2863: 2862: 2861: 2858: 2849: 2845: 2842: 2841:Spiffy sperry 2837: 2836: 2835: 2834: 2831: 2819: 2816: 2815: 2813: 2808: 2805: 2804: 2802: 2797: 2794: 2793: 2791: 2790: 2788: 2787: 2786: 2781: 2778: 2774: 2773: 2772: 2771: 2768: 2767:Spiffy sperry 2758: 2757: 2756: 2755: 2754: 2748: 2742: 2739: 2734: 2729: 2728: 2727: 2726: 2723: 2720: 2716: 2715: 2714: 2713: 2710: 2701: 2699: 2696: 2689: 2683: 2680: 2676: 2675: 2674: 2673: 2670: 2667: 2662: 2661: 2660: 2659: 2656: 2652: 2643: 2639: 2636: 2632: 2631: 2630: 2629: 2625: 2620: 2612: 2608: 2604: 2596: 2592: 2589: 2585: 2584: 2583: 2582: 2579: 2574: 2566: 2563: 2558: 2557: 2556: 2555: 2552: 2547: 2543: 2536: 2533: 2529: 2528: 2525: 2522: 2517: 2516: 2515: 2514: 2511: 2506: 2502: 2494: 2491: 2489: 2486: 2484: 2481: 2479: 2476: 2475: 2474: 2468: 2464: 2461: 2457: 2453: 2449: 2448: 2447: 2446: 2441: 2436: 2428: 2425: 2422: 2419: 2416: 2415: 2414: 2412: 2404: 2400: 2397: 2393: 2389: 2385: 2384: 2383: 2382: 2378: 2374: 2365: 2361: 2358: 2357:Spiffy sperry 2353: 2352: 2351: 2350: 2347: 2339: 2337: 2336: 2333: 2331: 2327: 2323: 2315: 2313: 2311: 2305: 2301: 2299: 2295: 2291: 2287: 2279: 2277: 2275: 2271: 2262: 2260: 2258: 2250: 2248: 2246: 2238: 2234: 2233: 2227: 2226: 2225: 2224: 2220: 2216: 2215: 2214: 2212: 2208: 2204: 2196: 2192: 2189: 2185: 2181: 2180: 2172: 2168: 2167: 2165: 2161: 2160: 2158: 2154: 2153: 2145: 2142: 2138: 2134: 2133: 2132: 2131: 2130: 2129: 2123: 2119: 2118:External link 2115: 2111: 2110: 2109: 2108: 2104: 2101: 2096: 2095: 2091: 2087: 2082: 2081: 2077: 2074: 2071: 2067: 2066: 2060: 2056: 2053:I agree with 2052: 2051: 2050: 2049: 2045: 2041: 2037: 2036: 2030: 2025: 2024: 2023: 2022: 2018: 2017: 2013: 2010: 2009: 2006: 2003: 2002: 1999: 1996: 1995: 1991: 1990: 1986: 1982: 1978: 1974: 1973: 1969: 1965: 1960: 1959: 1955: 1950: 1946: 1945: 1941: 1937: 1934: 1932: 1929: 1928: 1926: 1925: 1924: 1922: 1918: 1911: 1910: 1903: 1900:External link 1899: 1897: 1895: 1878: 1874: 1870: 1866: 1861: 1860: 1859: 1858: 1857: 1856: 1855: 1854: 1853: 1852: 1839: 1836: 1832: 1827: 1826: 1825: 1824: 1823: 1822: 1821: 1820: 1819: 1818: 1817: 1816: 1803: 1800: 1796: 1795: 1794: 1793: 1792: 1791: 1790: 1789: 1788: 1787: 1786: 1785: 1772: 1769: 1764: 1763: 1762: 1761: 1760: 1759: 1758: 1757: 1756: 1755: 1754: 1753: 1742: 1739: 1734: 1730: 1729: 1728: 1727: 1726: 1725: 1724: 1723: 1722: 1721: 1708: 1705: 1702: 1700: 1697: 1694: 1692: 1689: 1686: 1684: 1681: 1680: 1679: 1678: 1677: 1676: 1675: 1674: 1673: 1672: 1671: 1670: 1658: 1654: 1650: 1646: 1645: 1644: 1643: 1642: 1641: 1640: 1639: 1638: 1637: 1624: 1621: 1620: 1619: 1618: 1617: 1616: 1615: 1614: 1613: 1612: 1611: 1610: 1597: 1594: 1593: 1592: 1591: 1590: 1589: 1588: 1587: 1586: 1585: 1584: 1583: 1570: 1567: 1566: 1565: 1564: 1563: 1562: 1561: 1560: 1559: 1558: 1557: 1556: 1544: 1543: 1542: 1541: 1540: 1539: 1538: 1537: 1536: 1535: 1522: 1519: 1518: 1517: 1516: 1515: 1514: 1513: 1512: 1511: 1510: 1509: 1508: 1495: 1492: 1490: 1487: 1486: 1485: 1484: 1483: 1482: 1481: 1480: 1479: 1478: 1477: 1476: 1464: 1463: 1462: 1461: 1460: 1459: 1458: 1457: 1456: 1455: 1446: 1443: 1439: 1436: 1432: 1429: 1427: 1424: 1421: 1419: 1416: 1413: 1409: 1408: 1407: 1406: 1405: 1404: 1403: 1402: 1397: 1394: 1389: 1385: 1381: 1377: 1372: 1368: 1367: 1366: 1365: 1361: 1356: 1355: 1354: 1352: 1351:Michael Hardy 1347: 1341: 1339: 1336: 1330: 1328: 1326: 1322: 1321: 1314: 1310: 1306: 1303: 1302: 1298: 1296: 1294: 1291: 1283: 1279: 1276: 1271: 1270: 1269: 1267: 1261: 1259: 1251: 1246: 1245: 1244: 1242: 1221: 1206: 1203: 1202: 1201: 1195: 1193: 1191: 1177: 1176: 1175: 1174: 1173: 1171: 1163: 1162: 1158: 1156: 1154: 1150: 1144: 1141: 1137: 1136: 1135: 1134: 1132: 1123: 1114: 1110: 1109: 1108: 1107: 1106: 1105: 1099: 1095: 1091: 1090: 1089: 1088: 1084: 1079: 1075: 1074: 1073: 1071: 1067: 1063: 1059: 1055: 1051: 1047: 1043: 1039: 1035: 1030: 1029: 1028: 1019: 1017: 1011: 1009: 1006: 1003: 1002: 1001: 992: 990: 985: 982: 981: 980: 971: 967: 966: 965: 964: 960: 956: 955: 951: 947: 944: 940: 936: 935: 923: 919: 918: 917: 916: 915: 914: 913: 912: 911: 910: 900: 896: 892: 889:Ok, then try 888: 887: 886: 885: 884: 883: 882: 881: 874: 870: 869: 868: 867: 866: 865: 860: 856: 855: 854: 853: 849: 845: 842: 841: 838: 834: 833: 829: 824: 823: 819: 815: 812: 809: 806: 801: 797: 796: 795: 793: 789: 784: 783: 782: 773: 771: 770: 767: 762: 759: 754: 750: 749:sentence case 742: 739: 735: 731: 727: 724: 723: 722: 719: 716: 711: 707: 706: 703: 698: 695: 690: 685: 680: 677: 671: 669: 661: 657: 654: 650: 649: 648: 646: 638: 635: 631: 630: 629: 627: 619: 613: 610: 605: 600: 599: 598: 593: 592: 585: 582: 578: 574: 570: 569:New Scientist 566: 565:The Economist 562: 558: 554: 550: 546: 542: 538: 534: 533: 532: 531: 530: 529: 524: 521: 520: 519: 518: 512: 507: 506: 505: 504: 503: 502: 499: 489: 486: 483: 480: 477: 476: 472: 469: 466: 463: 460: 459: 457: 455: 452: 450: 446: 442: 441: 440: 438: 427: 423: 422: 420: 416: 415: 414: 412: 395: 391: 390: 389: 388: 387: 386: 385: 384: 383: 382: 371: 370: 369: 368: 367: 366: 365: 364: 356: 352: 351: 350: 349: 348: 347: 341: 337: 333: 332: 329: 325: 324: 314: 310: 309:The economist 306: 302: 301:The Economist 298: 294: 291: 290: 289: 288: 287: 286: 285: 284: 276: 272: 268: 267: 266: 265: 264: 263: 257: 252: 248: 247:The Economist 244: 240: 239: 238: 237: 231: 226: 225: 224: 223: 222: 220: 216: 209: 206: 201: 198: 194: 189: 188: 180: 179:Michael Hardy 176: 172: 171:Related Links 169: 168: 167: 166: 165: 164: 158: 154: 150: 149: 148: 147: 143: 139: 138: 134: 133: 129: 125: 124: 123: 121: 115: 113: 109: 104: 102: 95:This is Wrong 94: 92: 91: 89: 80: 73: 69: 68: 60: 56: 52: 51: 46: 39: 38: 29: 23: 19: 3600: 3586: 3578: 3574: 3570: 3558:131.111.8.96 3491: 3483: 3479: 3475: 3467: 3463: 3435: 3427: 3423: 3407: 3381: 3363: 3359: 3355: 3351: 3341: 3308: 3270: 3265: 3229: 3220: 3215: 3200: 3137: 3120: 3110: 3067: 3061: 3053:David Kernow 3050: 3045: 3041: 3037: 3035: 3023: 3002: 2993:David Kernow 2980: 2964:changed back 2957: 2903: 2853: 2827: 2784: 2764: 2752: 2705: 2697: 2693: 2647: 2606: 2602: 2600: 2569: 2539: 2497: 2492: 2487: 2482: 2477: 2472: 2432: 2411:Cite sources 2408: 2391: 2370: 2343: 2319: 2306: 2302: 2297: 2293: 2289: 2285: 2283: 2266: 2254: 2242: 2206: 2200: 2183: 2171:Stevietheman 2157:Stevietheman 2135:I disagree. 2117: 2113: 2085: 2039: 2012:chocolateboy 1997: 1976: 1948: 1916: 1912: 1908: 1907: 1901: 1890: 1830: 1732: 1706: 1698: 1690: 1682: 1656: 1652: 1648: 1622: 1595: 1568: 1545:rather than: 1520: 1493: 1488: 1434: 1425: 1411: 1387: 1383: 1375: 1370: 1348: 1345: 1337: 1334: 1324: 1319: 1318: 1317: 1305:Start with " 1304: 1287: 1263: 1255: 1219: 1209: 1204: 1199: 1185: 1167: 1151: 1148: 1128: 1127: 1065: 1061: 1057: 1053: 1049: 1045: 1041: 1033: 1031: 1024: 1023: 1015: 1007: 1004: 997: 996: 988: 983: 978: 938: 894: 807:be a header. 804: 785: 778: 777: 763: 757: 746: 737: 733: 729: 720: 712: 708: 699: 688: 681: 672: 665: 642: 634:proper nouns 625: 623: 603: 597:Cypriot stud 536: 523:Cypriot stud 510: 495: 474: 444: 433: 411:David Newton 407: 394:David Newton 335: 334:If it is an 327: 308: 304: 300: 246: 242: 213:Indeed: the 212: 193:David Iberri 170: 142:David Newton 127: 120:David Newton 116: 111: 107: 105: 100: 98: 88:proper nouns 85: 84: 71: 54: 48: 3393:standards, 3384:variations. 3291:82.6.110.34 3258:Markus Kuhn 3208:proper noun 3193:Markus Kuhn 3172:standards, 3152:proper noun 2709:Markus Kuhn 2666:Markus Kuhn 2611:subst:doctl 2450:Please see 2346:ElAmericano 2251:dates/years 2114:immediately 2069:eventually. 1237:<h1: --> 1235:instead of 1200:Regarding: 1094:WikiProject 1025:Moved from 941:section of 779:Moved from 766:Markus Kuhn 702:Markus Kuhn 689:book titles 668:determiners 655:in Europe"; 581:Markus Kuhn 545:house style 437:Gateman1997 205:ElAmericano 175:house style 112:subheadings 47:This is an 3511:Title Case 3373:title case 3166:company"); 3145:title case 3083:TreyHarris 3042:Miscellany 3011:Spangineer 2933:TreyHarris 2889:TreyHarris 2857:TreyHarris 2830:TreyHarris 2733:Spangineer 2679:Markkawika 2655:Markkawika 2573:Spangineer 2546:Spangineer 2505:Spangineer 2483:References 2420:References 2310:Fudoreaper 2294:References 2270:Viriditas 1942:-User:Docu 1422:==Header== 1338:and this: 1325:difference 1228:<p: --> 1212:<p: --> 753:title case 732:-ary into 645:capitalize 609:TreyHarris 535:But there 256:TreyHarris 3542:Bigendian 3096:Doug Bell 3015:(háblame) 2991:Regards, 2777:Omegatron 2737:(háblame) 2719:Omegatron 2577:(háblame) 2550:(háblame) 2509:(háblame) 2298:Footnotes 2257:The Ashes 2237:Jason One 2211:Jason One 1894:Wapcaplet 1768:Dysprosia 1442:Dysprosia 1412:paragraph 1371:paragraph 1360:Dysprosia 1275:Doug Bell 1258:Wapcaplet 1241:Wapcaplet 1113:Dysprosia 1083:Dysprosia 1038:MediaWiki 728:changing 626:delighted 498:RadioKirk 340:Dysprosia 230:Dysprosia 72:Archive 1 3546:ISO 8601 3478:back in 3216:supposed 3204:sentence 3164:New York 3051:Thanks, 2803:Cheddar 2792:Gruyere 2478:See also 2417:See also 2386:No, see 2377:Dan East 2286:See also 2219:Maurreen 2073:James F. 1190:Dittaeva 1131:Dittaeva 1098:Gentgeen 873:Tenbaset 848:Tenbaset 736:-Ary or 694:emphasis 426:Avochelm 419:Maurreen 355:Maurreen 243:Newsweek 108:headings 22:Headings 20:‎ | 3571:defense 3484:offense 3480:defense 3468:imposed 3342:nothing 3212:acroynm 3210:and/or 3138:nothing 3062:Italics 2820:Process 2809:Process 2798:Process 2635:Patrick 2029:Wernher 1921:Wernher 1873:Diberri 1799:Patrick 1691:History 1569:History 1489:History 1293:Hawstom 1266:Patrick 1250:Tarquin 1066:destroy 828:Patrick 710:taste. 551:or the 541:England 153:Fredrik 50:archive 3464:Claims 3428:favour 3395:Nature 3382:slight 3360:vigour 3237:BibTeX 3174:Nature 3046:Trivia 3038:Trivia 2943:Martin 2915:Martin 2789:Types 2326:WP:RFC 2203:titles 2141:Angela 2100:Angela 2090:— Matt 2086:sounds 2076:(talk) 2055:Kokiri 2044:Kokiri 1949:always 1831:before 1829:space 1653:before 1380:25 öre 1376:anyway 1142:, e.g. 950:Paul A 818:Paul A 805:should 715:BibTeX 653:unions 561:Nature 336:actual 313:Sinuhe 305:is not 219:Sinuhe 3579:fense 3575:fence 3424:favor 3408:color 3358:from 3352:vigor 3007:J. Lo 2969:Jamse 2817:Taste 2814:Brie 2806:Taste 2795:Taste 2488:Notes 2460:wiser 2456:older 2429:Notes 2396:Vclaw 2040:links 1981:Lexor 1954:Noisy 1657:after 1179:best. 1170:Nohat 826:). - 774:Style 740:-ary, 555:with 373:(UTC) 271:Lexor 16:< 3587:talk 3492:talk 3436:talk 3364:-ous 3309:talk 3274:Eep² 3223:Eep² 3160:York 3156:Nice 3114:Eep² 3071:Naha 2985:here 2927:and 2911:this 2906:this 2875:Toth 2649:See 2623:Toth 2613:}}) 2440:talk 2296:and 2274:Talk 2245:jguk 2188:Obey 2120:. -- 2059:Bevo 1985:Talk 1977:know 1968:Talk 1964:Dori 1877:Talk 1867:vs. 1733:more 1435:here 1426:here 1384:good 1076:The 1070:Phil 970:Arno 959:Arno 922:Egil 899:Arno 895:none 859:Egil 792:Arno 743:etc. 624:I'm 604:very 511:must 275:Talk 197:Talk 157:talk 3391:ISO 3170:ISO 3040:or 2870:Aza 2618:Aza 2330:DES 2207:not 2164:ssd 2122:ssd 2019:--- 1992:--- 1835:Jao 1738:Jao 1393:Jao 1320:Why 1224:div 1220:may 1216:div 1153:dml 1058:not 1036:). 1034:=== 948:-- 837:mav 816:-- 758:why 577:fad 573:ISO 449:DES 445:are 328:not 3614:e 3609:Jo 3516:SI 3482:, 3397:, 3176:, 3073:| 3069:-- 3003:is 2855:-- 2765:-- 2571:-- 2433:- 2394:-- 2390:: 2355:-- 2292:, 2288:, 2272:| 2184:is 1966:| 1875:| 1869:AE 1865:BE 1649:do 1647:I 1388:is 1311:== 1307:== 1273:– 1168:-- 1062:is 1054:1. 1050:== 1042:1. 764:— 700:— 662:". 579:. 571:, 567:, 563:, 195:| 191:-- 155:| 103:: 3619:I 3538:) 3476:c 3389:" 3366:. 3356:u 3336:" 3272:- 3112:- 2867:→ 2615:→ 2607:+ 2603:= 2519:— 2458:≠ 2442:) 2438:( 2144:. 2103:. 1983:| 1902:s 738:N 734:n 730:n 307:" 273:| 61:. 30:)

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Knowledge (XXG)

talk:Manual of Style/Headings/Archive 1 - Knowledge (XXG)

Index