I'm pretty sure I remember a discussion that took place long ago about avoiding use of the level one header in articles, but I can't recall where or when that discussion took place.
At any rate, there's been some discussion about it recently on the Sidekick talk page (http://paragonwiki.com/wiki/Talk:Sidekick). Anyone remember way back when this was decided? Maybe have a link handy for the original discussion?
Thanks for making this thread eabrace!
In favor of using 1-equals:
It gives better outlining choices. Level 1 and 2 are full page line divisions, with 1 being a larger font than 2. Levels 3-5 are just simply bolded headers that get progressively smaller with no underlining and no indentation.
So, without Level 1, Levels 2-5 are four levels in which three of those levels have, IMO, poor distinctions in formatting. Usually when I get three levels deep I find myself abandoning the equals-titles and start using indenting and bullet points for ease of reading by using formatting that looks a lot better than subtle changes of font size (and really, do we want people squinting to read level 5?).
I know that the ever-shrinking-font-as-outlining is popular nowadays (Microsoft Word has that as the outlining default), but it is, IMO, an ugly way to outline. The ability to change font-size is overused as section delimiters and seems to have been brought about by computer word-processing making it easy to do. And just because it's now easy to do doesn't make it pretty.
I know that asking that we change the way that levels 3-5 is formatted is a non-starter. But allowing Level-1 is an easy 'fix' (as long as it's not overused).
Side rant (slightly jokey):
You know what's really aggressively obnoxious? This:
Quote—Preceding unsigned comment added by Zombie Man (talk • contribs) 20:44, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
I forget to sign it and instead of auto-signing it I get this passive aggressive reminder that I didn't sign it? Go to heck faceless automaton!!!
:gonk:
I don't remember ever saying not to use it. I know I haven't put a lot of thought into it myself.
The two-equals headers came because that's the convention at the Wikipedia, which I tried to pattern the articles here after. I don't think I've ever seen single-equals headers there (although I'm sure someone will post a link to prove me wrong ;)). If there's a particular reason to change it, I'm not dead-set against the idea. However, I do want to avoid the formatting of articles to get all out of whack and inconsistent from article to article. If we decide that there are purposes for which single-equals headers would be appropriate, I'd like to spell out as much as possible exactly what those purposes are so that no one ever has to wonder which to use.
The main reason I started using it on the Sidekicking article was merely to have more differentiation between topics. I didn't understand why it hadn't been used on the original article, and thought it was just an oversight.
I can appreciate the desire for article uniformity. OTOH, I think it's a tool that could be used and currently isn't. That's my 2 cents anyhow.
Quote from: Zombie_Man on October 22, 2009, 05:01:52 AM
Side rant (slightly jokey):
You know what's really aggressively obnoxious? This:
I forget to sign it and instead of auto-signing it I get this passive aggressive reminder that I didn't sign it? Go to heck faceless automaton!!!
Hey, I'll have you know that automaton isn't faceless. ;) (We have a template sitting around to make it easier to add signatures to unsigned comments. I added it when I posted my following response.)
Quote from: TonyV on October 22, 2009, 06:11:14 AM
If we decide that there are purposes for which single-equals headers would be appropriate, I'd like to spell out as much as possible exactly what those purposes are so that no one ever has to wonder which to use.
Here is my suggestion: overly-lengthy articles, especially those with multiple sections and/or multiple historical sections (the Base Rent article comes to mind) can benefit from the single-equal headers.
Either that, or we can just use single-equal headers from here on out; consider it a "v2" format methodology.
In either case, we shouldn't worry about retrofitting previous articles, unless they're being updated anyhow. However, in the future, we can use the newer standard for future articles or revisions.
That's just my take anyhow.
Quote from: eabrace on October 22, 2009, 12:07:50 PM
Hey, I'll have you know that automaton isn't faceless. ;) (We have a template sitting around to make it easier to add signatures to unsigned comments. I added it when I posted my following response.)
That's not proof the automaton isn't faceless, just that you're the automaton :P
True. I just might be faceless. That would certainly save on Halloween costumes.
I personally don't like the level-1 headers because they are hyuuuuge. HUGE! They are they same size as the "title of page" header, which makes it look like the subsections within the article are all sections independent of the article. They're not. They're all subsections of the article title. The article header should be the biggest header on the page.
The article name uses a level one heading. From a code semantics perspective, additional level one headings indicate additional articles, rather than additional sections in the same article.
Of course, code semantics don't always translate into human semantics. For instance, a lot of things are semantically lists (such as the toolbars) even though they aren't rendered as such.
Personally, I think the level one headings look bad--they seem too big. If a page has only a few sections, there's really no reason to use it; in fact, if it starts getting used routinely, it'd be breaking convention from most other mediawiki-based wikis which isn't good usability (consistency generally makes for a better end-user experience unless a specific situation warrants otherwise). But if the page has so many sections that it starts needing more than three or so levels of organization, it can make sense to use.
Alternately, if an article starts needing that many section headings, it might also benefit from being divided up into separate articles. (Easier said than done, of course.)
Quote from: Sekoia on October 23, 2009, 05:17:15 AM
The article name uses a level one heading. From a code semantics perspective, additional level one headings indicate additional articles, rather than additional sections in the same article.
Of course, code semantics don't always translate into human semantics. For instance, a lot of things are semantically lists (such as the toolbars) even though they aren't rendered as such.
Personally, I think the level one headings look bad--they seem too big. If a page has only a few sections, there's really no reason to use it; in fact, if it starts getting used routinely, it'd be breaking convention from most other mediawiki-based wikis which isn't good usability (consistency generally makes for a better end-user experience unless a specific situation warrants otherwise). But if the page has so many sections that it starts needing more than three or so levels of organization, it can make sense to use.
Alternately, if an article starts needing that many section headings, it might also benefit from being divided up into separate articles. (Easier said than done, of course.)
Sekoia took what I tried to say and made it sound way smarter.
o.o;; guess I'm adding the 2cents in here a bit late but, I thought the main reason we where avoiding using the single '='s was to better match wikipedia, and that they're ugly..
>_> I'm against them in general since they're both the same size as the page title, AND bolded, just as the title is.
<.< course, I'm also the person who snuck in pictures as headers so I should possibly not be talking...
Quote from: Aggelakis on October 23, 2009, 09:19:27 AM
Sekoia took what I tried to say and made it sound way smarter.
Quote from: Sekoia on October 23, 2009, 05:17:15 AM
The article name uses a level one heading. From a code semantics perspective, additional level one headings indicate additional articles, rather than additional sections in the same article.
Of course, code semantics don't always translate into human semantics. For instance, a lot of things are semantically lists (such as the toolbars) even though they aren't rendered as such.
Personally, I think the level one headings look bad--they seem too big. If a page has only a few sections, there's really no reason to use it; in fact, if it starts getting used routinely, it'd be breaking convention from most other mediawiki-based wikis which isn't good usability (consistency generally makes for a better end-user experience unless a specific situation warrants otherwise). But if the page has so many sections that it starts needing more than three or so levels of organization, it can make sense to use.
Alternately, if an article starts needing that many section headings, it might also benefit from being divided up into separate articles. (Easier said than done, of course.)
Yes, I can agree with this, in the same vein that Zombie_Man was getting at in his previous post also. I would much rather use a one-equal header in multiple-section articles rather tan a five-equals header. Not only is it more distinctive, but easier to type out :p
Perhaps the Sidekicking article was not the best place to use single-equal headers, but IMHO I don't think we should "never" use them. Rather lengthy articles could greatly benefit from them.
Level 1 Equals is the page title for the default layout. The Layout I use puts the article title in a bar up top.
(https://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f346/zombie_guy/City%20of%20Heroes/Demo%20and%20Help/WikiEG.jpg)