This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation articles
I have just reverted a good faith edit which put in two levels of == type headings in a very short list of places. This is inelegant, makes navigation harder rather than easier, and is against mos:dab. Abtract (talk) 15:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Outnumbered I may be but wrong I am not. See mos:dab#Longer lists for my justification for not wanting to see the inelegant usage of two levels of heading when one would do very well. In addition it would be more helpful as the headings actually get in the way on short lists. All of course imho. Maybe other editors have an opinion? As an aside, I notice that your first edit here Sess was to weigh in against me; I am intrigued, what drew you to this page? Abtract (talk) 23:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What precisely is it that you see in mos:dab#Longer lists that you think justifies removing a "single" section heading level? Or perhaps there the section is ambiguous -- AFAICR, the guidance using more than a single level, as on Aurora (disambiguation), is rarely necessary was specifically addressing sections that constitute the table of contents. Many editors use the non-section headings precisely to avoid forcing a TOC and to avoid what may be overly large type size in proportion to the page. older ≠ wiser 23:15, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for addressing the problem. My point is simple (and mos:dab#Longer lists seems to agree with me "Section headers may be used on longer lists instead of, or in addition to, bold subject area headings, but using more than a single level, as on Aurora (disambiguation), is rarely necessary.") ... in long lists heading are useful, in short lists they get in the way. Do you seriously think the double header is actually useful rather than intrusive? Look again at the single "Places in Australia" etc ... what is wrong with that? I leave you to decide. Abtract (talk) 23:32, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
These is distinction made between "section headers" and "bold subject area headings". And yes, I do think having the headings grouped into a logical grouping is indeed far more useful than it is intrusive. older ≠ wiser 02:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
