Naming convention (section titles)

See http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Governing_Operational_distinction

Section naming is important to new authors because they don't know what to call them because they don't know how the content should be split up. because hypertext linking changes explication and profession.

Structure

Structure forms writing archatechtonically. The author of a book might arrange the chapters chronologically. Style is habit. The article becomes structured in a way that is what it is about. See user:cpiral/Essay on Wikipedia style.) That is because of the phenomena of holography.

A blob of information is made accessible by presenting it well. The expert proofreader needs no sectionalization to help them to understand the information. That expert is the author. But then they would not be reading it unless they were proofreading. That is when reading is writing. It's all about sharing. Knowledge is wealth. Good presentation is both logical and aesthetic. Logic is sequences, and sequences are products of analysis, in part and in whole.

Writing is analytical proof of that knowledge. Writing polishes. Writing is half-way to Wittgenstein's "hardest thing to do".

End

Appendices are the sections at the end of a work of writing. Since we write articles, these are sections. In books they can be the size and style of a chapter. Here are some colorful comments about each of the possible titles for appendices that are verifications sections.

Verification

Appendices deal largely with citations. Naming them depends on style and layout structure. Wikipedia is an enclopedia is a reference work — professing the worlds knowledge in an organized and succinct way, applying lucidity to articles, and letting notability be free during growth periods—the citations will be numerous.

References. A references is an ambiguous word, whose interpretation depends on the context. References are references to references to references... to references. It is like cagegory. It's meaning is relative to the context. The text refers to the cite by using a reference. The cite is in the appendix. The referenced cite m can be "short", or "general". Parenthetical references are inline citations. The term as used throughout WP:CITE is a "general reference". The actual cite in the reference section is a reference to the source. (See WP:inline citation, WP:categories#terminology.)
Notes are used for exposition and verification. If Notes contains
- 1. Smith, 2009. p. 15. then References contains
- "Smith, John Q. 2009. Everyman's Life. Publisher, London."
Notes and .... it is rare to have Notes without References or Citations or some other name.
Works are any human effort, not only writing, but music, painting, and any art or science. This stresses artists' artistic efforts.
List of works
Works cited
Works consulted is used by a genius at work, just needed to verify she was right.
Sources is for secret, computer programming, or shopping related contexts
Citations could pair with military, policing, government, science, portfolio, and transportation contexts because the word citations has application to military citations, traffic police citations, government proclamations, and where I can be personally verified, such as my resume or portfolio.

Beyond the end

When you just can't say enough about the topic, but the fringe in a note, and tuck it further away than a parenthetical phrase could. Don't even think about anything deeper than these.

Notes that are side-notes, love-notes, digressions, trivia.
Footnotes instead of Notes if big words was the style.
See also when visual terminology was the style.
Further reading for elementary or intermediate topics.
Footnotes is notes at the foot of the document. It has an earthy, somatic style.
Endnotes is notes at the end of the document. It has a eschatological, absolute style.
A selected bibliography is a quick off-the-top of most popular favorites used to form the authorship
Biblography is a list of books of interest. They may or may not be citations.

Middle

Say you are writing an article and you have two choices of where to link to get the same information reference for your article's link. Furthermore, one of the sections is less appropriately named, but has better information. Which one do you choose? The better information of course. Later the better titled one is improved. After that the link in the article is moved. For an example see Booting#Boot_loader.

Raw data

Say I'm new. I'm editing for a few months, and I'm able to learn on the wiki about verifiability, and many other concepts on a basic level. It's great! I don't need much at this stage. I can contribute my good sense of words, and quickly hone the grammar and syntax. I never learned citation. What is a style guide., but I have a knack for terminology and concepts. I just need wp:CITE or Layout#notes to teach me enough basic terminology and concepts to enable me to 1) add a citation to an article that needs one, where I'll have to add a section and pick a name for it, or 2)rename a poorly titled section being used for a list of citations or 3) move a referent or note from one section to another, or 4)add another section for references within notes? I can't do any of that by looking at Layout#notes WP:CITE, or WP:CITET, any one place for beginners.

Layout#notes starts to list citation oriented sections, but it's missing some. Terminology and concepts alone will enable me.

"This article needs citations." (wp:RELY, WP:V, define "cite" for WP, basic markup or template, OK)

Now for a section title choice listing:

footnotes (OK. I learned that today from parenthetical referencing)
List of works (What is "works"?)
See also (Why?)
Notes (side-notes, love-notes, digressions, OK)
References (referents? References are actually references to references. Who knew?)
Bibliography (the books cited? the books recommended? (Just kidding.))
External links (URLs not on Wikipedia, and not on sister projects) (I had to guess.)
Works cited (Oh, so that what "works" are...)
Sources (obvious. I'd think "Use that for gov't works." I wouldn't write that.)
Citations (very clear. Use for policy articles. ;-) )
Works consulted (Used by a genius at work, just needed to verify she was right?)
A selected bibliography (a quick off-the-top of most popular favorites used to form the authorship?)

As a proud person, as a complex person, as a beginner, I want to 1) choose the easiest template or markup, 2) make a cite by hand and make a cite by template, and 3) choose from a fancy list of section titles from all the various styles ever conceived.

the question of "WHat are footer sections named, and why" Note that the links from the source discussions, are absent here due to cutting and pasting from the display, not the wikitext.

These statements point to (1)the need for a list of section title names with some accompanying text so that debates end, confusion ends, and newcomers can get to work while being educated towards a "higher" cite. And at the same time, (2) they may serve as the very content of the documentation I propose be written.

I care for neither the mechanics of a style guide nor the dogmatics of a content guide. I just want information so that once I read it, I will pick the "popular" one for myself. For example, I don't care about when "Notes" is used for (1) exposition, and when it will be used for (2) verification." I just want to know that "notes" is a possible name for a footer section and that it has been known to have both cites and notes in it (whatever the case may be).

If you want newcomers to gradually develop, then give them the background of the situation by forcing them to view the explanations of the section titles while they look at the list of section titles. That way, they will be exposed to their future where they are the oldtimer expert.

Even if not for newcomers, how about for old time's sake? Make a glossary.

Post Script of Data and my commentary in it: It has become somewhat obvious now that I'm done, what the response will be: Use your data from the discussions to "Write your own main namespace article." like MOS-like articles are (reference), etc. We're policy. We make recommendations. We qualify FA by them. I get it.

[Editorial remarks by CpiralCpiral in square brackets]

It is highly debatable that "if there are citations then they are never in my experience never placed in a section called Notes without a References section also existing" [just say that then]
What you think of as "notes" is not the same as what many other editors consider "notes".
if there is a Notes section there is usually a References section as well...or the two my be combined into a "Notes and references" section (or my preference if they are combined "References and notes")
When PBS says "citations", he means "short citations". I keep hoping that he'll start describing them as "short citations" to avoid this regular point of confusion, but he's right: if you have a section that contains "1. Smith, 2009. p. 15.", then there's always another section that contains "Smith, John Q. 2009. Everyman's Life. Publisher, London." These two sections are frequently (although not always) titled "Notes" and "References", respectively. These are not "general references" in the sense that WP:CITE uses that term.
I need clarification on something, which has come up in three different discussions with other editors recently regarding my edits, two of which are disagreements. For the longest time, I thought the formatted sources given as numerical footnotes that, when clicked where they appear in the article's body, take you down to the list at the bottom of the article, were called "References", and always titled that section by that name. Recently, however, I discovered on WP:Layout this, this and this, which seems to indicated that that section is actually called "Notes", and that References sections are for the non-formatted list of sources used. User: Gavia immer has insisted On my Talk Page that the list of formatted citations is called "References". Which is it? Am I right, or is he? Nightscream (talk) 03:06, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
I prefer to refer to this section in abstract as the "verification sections", as the actual title used may encompass"Notes", "Footnotes", "References", "Sources", "Citations", "Bibliography", and "Works cited". WP:LAYOUT only decided to enumerate three the most commonly used.
"Sources", "Citations", and "Bibliography" are deprecated in this context as potentially confusing: Sources could refer to source code, a place to buy something, etc.; Citations could be military honors, government proclamations, the author being cited in another important work, the paper that traffic violations are written on, etc.; Bibliography is usually reserved for a complete list of all printed works by an author. [editorial comment: the only relevence here is the spirit of an attempt to make some kind of comment about the section titles, and not the comments themselves.]
"Notes and references" are simply putting together two the names enumerated, it's possible to have "Notes and Citations" and likewise, but combinations would make the list cumbersome.
For example for a long time I placed article sections in the order "References, Further reading, Footnotes", I only changed to "Notes, References, Footnotes" because that was the suggestion on this page (because some people preferred the Notes to be next to References. I preferred Footnotes last so that any footnotes in "Further reading" could be included in the Footnotes section.
"Notes" and "Footnotes" are the most natural names for explanatory notes—however—they're used for verification as well. For these reasons they may also be merged, with ambiguous intent to be used for (1) verification or (2) for both verification and exposition. This yields the form we talk about earlier: "Notes and references".
"Notes" can be used as references as well as exposition, which implies that it can hold {{reflist}}.[??]
WP:FA and WP:GA withhold approval if the article being propose doesn't follow WP:LAYOUT [then the proposed list of section titles should not be in WP:LAYOUT, but in some lesser guideline?]
I think we need to agree terminology or we could be talking at cross purposes. Can we use the terms notes, citations, for the things generated by the footnote system and refer to a bullet list of sources as "references"?
this system [mixing both notes and citations (long and short) in a bullet list] has the advantages of not leading to statements like "I think the references should be labeled notes." [bolding mine]
Notes is used more often in citations than in the form of explanatory notes.
WP:LAYOUT [as opposed to WP:CITE] only covers the title and general location of the section. "Notes" and "Footnotes" are enumerated as a possible titles in the '"References" section'.
["Bibliography" can mean] "books [and other stuff] I used when writing this article" or "books written by this particular author"?) [just say that]
Putting linked comments in a “Notes” section, followed by linked short citations in a “Footnotes” section, followed by a list of full citations in a “References” section. [just say that it is practiced by some]
A variation on this approach is to name the last two sections "Citations" and "References" [OK]
[Citations] isn't used enough to justify the recommendation. [I don't care about recommendations.]
I am very strongly in favour of "Bibliography"'. A bibliography is a great chance for Wikipedia to do what it does best, provide a starting point for further research. The first stage in any study of a subject is to find a bibliography. Except online, one can't really find bibliographies until one has a book on the subject. In my opinion, searching for bibliographies online is a very random business, and often one ends up at Wikipedia. However, the only way one can find a bibliography on Wikipedia is if there is a section (or article) title with that name. Many of our bibliographies are actually lurking under other names. [user: qp10qp]
One objection to "Bibliography" is that it is may not be complete. That's the nature of Wikipedia, but what we provide may at least give a start. Another objection is that any booklist in an article should restrict itself to the sources cited. I disagree that this needs to be the case, since the footnotes section will show which books are cited; if there are further ones in the bibliography, I don't think that matters. On the latter point, I would add that since citations may come and go, it is more or less impossible to preserve the umbilical relation between citations and book list over time: sooner or later, a ref will go while the source remains in the list. qp10qp
You seem to have confused the section under discussion with the one that is commonly called "Further reading"
No, I haven't confused it. It's a deliberate proposal that the two be amalgamated. The footnotes section makes it perfectly clear which books and articles have been cited.
...your proposal to merge lists of 'stuff I used' and 'stuff I didn't use'...

I don't care about deprecating a word (burning bibliography) either. I just want to know that it exists, and some colorful comments about it.

That's it in a dump-truck.

CpiralCpiral 01:05, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

What links here for sections

[1]

What links here: will it ever accept section names?

The What links here page could just evolve a tiny bit of intelligence into the "insides" of the text box widget titled Page, so that it accepts the '#" character. Currently it just kicks the section name out.

What links to a section? The tighter organization of a more highly efficient and structured Wikipedia, that's what links to a section. If "Wikipedia is forever" it will need a What links here for sections because section names are a structural guidance to both content and links to content —a foundational, systemic structure— but systemic restructuring cannot occur without changing the name, and changing the name cannot occur without What links here. (It can, but changing the links to it is vital, and some articles have thousands of links to them.) If Wikipedia is forever, it will be the earlier evolutionary changes that will have the most effect there, even if those changes are so small as a single "#" character recognition by What links here.

Section naming is just as structural to an encyclopedia as are its outline and its categories. This is because the name of a section determines:

the outline of the article;
the growth pattern of the article;
the growth pattern of Wikipedia: a section attracts content and then spins-off a new article. (See summary article.)
the speed (efficiency and precision) of information, linked by editors.

Here is the primitive method we now use: (1) Search what links here at the article level, (2) search each one on the list for a possible section-level link, (3) change that link name. Here is the primitive policy we have at w:WP:MOS#Section management:

When linking to a section, as a courtesy, go to that article's section and leave an editor's note to remind others that the title is linked. List the names of the linking articles, so that if the title is altered, others can fix the links without having to perform exhaustive searches.

For example: ==Evolutionary implications==

By contrast it is easy to change a structural element in a category or an outline.

Cpiral 18:45, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Cpiral 18:25, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Our manual of style for Computer Networking

Wikipedia:Manual of style#Section headings: "Section names should not explicitly refer to the subject of the article." Should we ignore this rule? Go half way? What?

I seek to wonder, with you, if the new-to-this-subject and old alike could appreciate what Types of area meant, and what Local, Campus, Metropolitan, Wide, Global, and Private meant from the table of contents at the top of the article.

The main reason I ask is because I believe I understand section naming as a complex system, with explicit, naming guidelines, and that section naming has as a significant effect on an online encyclopedia as does the encyclopedia's WP:outline and its WP:category systems, because section names can be directly linked from other articles, and because changing the section name later then kills links. This makes section titles a more involved and deeper structure than changing an outline or category element of the overall structure.

We are equally future-blind to the way links will form the category and content links. Outlines, on the other hand, tell us what will be. I believe section names are a kind of wiki-wide outline that we make that should guide future editors as to how things should be. Section naming is outlining the article, and more: it has the same effect on the article as it will on future editors—the entire wiki—because of their freedom to interlink subsections. By following some carefully thought out guidelines we can effect a future structure that does not have to be continually reworked. The only other option that I can think of is to explain that editors should refrain from linking to sections that follow don't follow the naming guideline, because they might there link might die when the target is renamed later.

My vision of efficiency compels me to say all that. In the particular case of Computure networks and it's naming structure, I further ask that the following ideas be granted admission:

Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal. It is a catalog of the worlds knowledge, whose goal is to report. Our section titles, like newspaper titles, are our own, important, planned resource, and we can make them unique while not deviating in the actual textual content from the field's use of the terminology.
In any future (Wikipedia is forever?) the organization becomes tight, the structure well known. Links to subsections more routine. You are there as a future editor. Compare:

We don't have to use the field's terminology in our section names, but we are duty bound to report in our textual content precisely and strictly what the notable world says, and how they say it. We have an even more important duty though to carefully consider section names because they are future links for our organization. The way way Wikipedia is now, we're still setting up the basic outline. Ergo, I am here believing that the outline we choose today will influence the rate of the efficiency of content addition and content linking tomorrow.

Our current section-naming guideline would produce the following, stunning revelations that were, in section 3, at first impression, objectionable to me, but I quickly got used to them as a wiki thing:

    * 1 Introduction
    * 2 Classification
          o 2.1 Connection method
          o 2.2 Scale
          o 2.3 Architecture
          o 2.4 Topology
    * 3 Types by area
          o 3.1 Personal
          o 3.2 Local
          o 3.3 Campus
          o 3.4 Metropolitan
          o 3.5 Wide area
          o 3.6 Global
          o 3.7 Private area
          o 3.8 Internetwork
          ... <snip>

Note: The term area at 3.5 and 3.7 suffixed the most general adjectives, but not those easily associated with some noun. "Wide what?" and "Private what?" are valid questions, but "Campus what?" is not, etc. It's computer networks!

May our opinions meet no urgency in the answering, but find the importance of consideration nevertheless. Thank you very much for your consideration of these matters, and I look forward to a leisurely discussion. — Cpiral Cpiral 23:51, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

From other tech articles

Devoting entire an section to any one, notable, production OS is problematic.

Each branch of the outline tree better be a conceptual category, not an implementation fruit.
The size of the article is already twice the limit; these sections can only increase in the future, and notability discussions will then be required.
An OS is usually personal to an editor, therefore a "representative" often tempts bias. Neutrality and objectivity slip. Troll call. Vandals become even more careless.

The problem sections are 3.x and 2.10.x.

I am plugging away at what I consider an improvement for the operating system article, when I venture here while doing that work there, and I see this article has a similar need: See the discussion at Talk:Operating_system#Devoting_an_entire_section_to_each_notable_OS. IMHO, prose product sections are magnets for vandalism, spam, WP:COI and the like. and are best presented in a comparison table, while the prose contains lucid theory, with products mentioned in a third tier, under practice, under concept, while giving examples of theory. i.e IMHO, the article should be about file system terminology first, usage of that terminology in as many ways as possible, as learned from how the field uses file system terminology. Second it should use the terms in examples, as dictionaries do. But these examples are not yet products, they are primarily the general practices, shared by products. Third, when necessary, refer to products that are unique, so that the terminology gets a thorough representation of the field.

The size and the vandalism at Operating system got me started thinking this way. The size of of this article is 36kb. It will grow even bigger with the structure the way it is, with products as section titles. BTW, the section titles of this article are not in agreement with WP:MOSHEAD, where it says "Section names should not explicitly refer to the subject of the article". — Cpiral Cpiral 09:18, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Section names should not normally contain trademarked products

An Article's structure determines its future growth, how additions are made to it. Currently, I face the danger of "product-ized" section headings. See the links below, (shall we?):

Talk:Operating system#Devoting an entire section to each notable OS (and similarly at three out of four discussions after that one) and additionally (arg!) at
Talk:File system#Structure of this article.
Talk:Computer_network#Considering_our_manual_of_style

Only the informed need reply.

The links speak of prioritizing teaching thusly: key terms, key concepts, practices, and then products when appropriate. The links also show how we would undo past practice if I am right. I need input.

Concerning the "shelving" (the structure) of regular articles' sections, although sections named after products and trademards look good when the article is young and ignorant, they mature poorly when you get them home later. To be fair we let notable products and trademarks have free floating articles, but as a matter of my book of facts, no mention in sections. To be fair to future editors, like myself, should not this notion of future growth get a mention in WP:MOS now? Or should we have notability drives, policing the "only four slots" allowed for the most notable products to fit? Or is the future size of articles a non-issue? I ask you. — Cpiral Cpiral 01:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Since I was one of the original complainers (though I hadn't thought of it as a style issue at the time), I had to think about your question to at least try to frame it in terms my brain could understand. I most certainly do not have the ultimate answer, but instead went looking for an example far outside the scope we are talking about. My brain (which I note is no longer under warranty), came up with the example article "Banana". Where, exactly, does a product like Dole fit? Answer: One wikilinked mention in section four, Trade. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 04:43, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

That's the way it should be done. Dole is the last thing non-traders (most people) need to learn about bananas. There are many good examples of technical articles similar to operating system that have avoided the cancer of irrelevance, and the drama of the spammer or troll. Let's see, uh... File system? No. Kernel? No. Word processor Yes. Spreadsheet No. Uh... Mmmm... beer. Yes. — Cpiral Cpiral 08:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't see this as a major issue. Articles can shrink if necessary. If the prominence of a given brand wanes, the article can be adjusted accordingly. Mandating "no trademarks in headers" is an unnecessary restriction. In most cases, it will not be natural to organize an article that way. In some cases, it might be. Discussion on a talk page should resolve any conflict about it. (John User:Jwy talk) 19:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Shrink? You mean cleanup? They grow easily, like a baby. It's a major work to clean them up, like some adults. The phrase I propose is "Section names should not normally contain trademarked products" is as light and subtle and unread and disregarded and useful as it's sister phrase "Section names should not normally contain links". Its a rule to ignore, but there from skilled, experienced analysis. — Cpiral Cpiral 00:14, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

It takes work to intelligently grow OR shrink an article. And more than just the brand names are going to change over time - banishing all such things from the headings is not worth the work. Basically, I am not convinced it makes sense to have such a rule. (John User:Jwy talk) 01:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Worth noting, too, that a lot more terms are trademarked than many people realise. For example, The Simpsons is a registered trademark of 20th Century Fox Film Corp., Tablet PC is a registered trademark of Microsoft Corporation. Thus, imposing a blanket ban could cause significantly more problems than might be expected. Barnabypage (talk) 21:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

OK then let's say "not normally use", but do you get the amount of work it would take to clean an article up? Do you want to leave a mess to the next generation? — Cpiral Cpiral 00:14, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that a blanket ban is a very bad idea. Not only do we risk opening a can of worms as Barnaby mentions, in many cases when writing about a company, it is only appropriate for it's notable products (which are most cerainly trademarked) to be used as section headers.

Also, I disagree with the initial assertion that an article's structure determines future growth. I've completely overhauled articles in my day, and I've seen others so overhauled. It's a false assertion.oknazevad (talk) 21:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

How about a pillow ban? And who bans banners from banning product names from section banners? It's just the phrase "not normally use". The biggest effort is saving all information, making sure they are preserved somewhere. I've had to spend many (happy?) hours rewriting the information into other articles to make room for some missing facts our "operating systems" now leaves out of teaching about operating systems. (It's B-class.) — Cpiral Cpiral 00:14, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I think there is definitely an issue, I'm just not convinced it is a style issue. I think content and structure are better addressed other places than in the MOS. For example, if I understand correctly, WP:WikiProject Films has content and structure guidelines for movie articles. To me, the Project level seems like it may be the best place to address these issues. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 06:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Syntax/grammar = structure/style = WP:Layout/WP:MOS = subject/content. Where do section titling recommendations go? They are here, MOS. WP Layout has section-naming guidelines for appendices. I'm trying to make the general case here Aladin, not just technology-articles or just wikiprojects, but Wikipedia.

Sections themselves are the architectonics of an article, a sort of syntax for the entire articulation. But section titles also convey content. They imply content. They should not have actual wikt:factoids. Factoids, like product names, are facts that change quickly. Sections layout subject matter. Sections imply content, but should not contain any content if that content is subject to change. Sections divide subject matter, and products are just content. So don't use product names as subject matter headings, use them as factoids. Say how <product name> relates <subject>. Don't say <subject> is <product name>, unless it is an article about the product.

Wikipedia should only name the structures—portals, categories and section names—in a way so that all the unchanging facts and all notable opinions in the world fit comfortably and sustainably here in structure. When this state arises, we only change factoids. We add history. Wikipedia's work now is more structural, and I'm proposing some.

Changing section titles "later" could be dangerous because it might deadens links. On a completely organized Wikipedia, articles will link, more often than not, to specific sections of other articles. None of the 50 or so samples I checked of the 900 links I surveyed for in a what-links-here list for operating system (OS) article linked to an OS subsection. This implies that what dominates the motives of the other articles editor's linking to OS is that they just want the lead info, or that OS has no well defined structure, or that the wiki is still becoming organized from a nebulous state. Waiting until later to remove product names from subsection names is rude because it forces one to act to contain the size of the article when some notable product suddenly, and seemingly quite appropriately, lines up it's own subsection with the other products because that is the way the article was designed because MOS had narry a warning. Notability does not directly pertain to the content of articles, structure does.

If having product names in subsection names might promote higher vandalism, spam, and WP:COI rates, then leaving products more embedded and hidden in the text would shrink targets and temptations. Structures are for branches, not leaves. (If getting toolserver accounts worked, (it doesn't), I would do a query to try and support this.)

Setting up future work, putting off 'til the 'morrow what can be done today, is sometimes prudent, but in this case it's system-blindness. Each change of a section title in the more organized future may deaden many more links on other pages than it does now. A WP:Wikignome would say "We don't need the 'what links here' niche". I say we eliminate that work of the future by warning new editors now about how the system works, how an outline's component-naming has a permanent effect on growth of content, from zero to <size of article> and beyond. Who'd o'thunk?

— Cpiral Cpiral 00:13, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Please see the three essay-like discussions I link to at the top of this discussion. (I just added the third one.) — Cpiral Cpiral 23:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Here is the proper way to soften the raid of advertising, here is also how Raid squashes the spam bug. (Later I'll turn this quote into an ant-an-more-size link.)

Operating system based ("software RAID") Software implementations are now provided by many operating systems. A software layer sits above the (generally block-based) disk device drivers and provides an abstraction layer between the logical drives (RAIDs) and physical drives. Most common levels are RAID 0 (striping across multiple drives for increased space and performance) and RAID 1 (mirroring two drives), followed by RAID 1+0, RAID 0+1, and RAID 5 (data striping with parity) are supported.

Apple's Mac OS X Server supports RAID 0, RAID 1 and RAID 1+0.^[1]

FreeBSD supports RAID 0, RAID 1, RAID 3, and RAID 5 and all layerings of the above via GEOM modules^[2]^[3] and ccd.^[4], as well as supporting RAID 0, RAID 1, RAID-Z, and RAID-Z2 (similar to RAID-5 and RAID-6 respectively), plus nested combinations of those via ZFS.

Linux supports RAID 0, RAID 1, RAID 4, RAID 5, RAID 6 and all layerings of the above.^[5]^[6]

Microsoft's server operating systems support 3 RAID levels; RAID 0, RAID 1, and RAID 5. Some of the Microsoft desktop operating systems support RAID such as Windows XP Professional which supports RAID level 0 in addition to spanning multiple disks but only if using dynamic disks and volumes. Windows XP supports RAID 0, 1, and 5 with a simple file patch ^[7]. RAID functionality in Windows is slower than hardware RAID, but allows a RAID array to be moved to another machine with no compatibility issues.

NetBSD supports RAID 0, RAID 1, RAID 4 and RAID 5 (and any nested combination of those like 1+0) via its software implementation, named RAIDframe.

OpenBSD aims to support RAID 0, RAID 1, RAID 4 and RAID 5 via its software implementation softraid.

OpenSolaris and Solaris 10 supports RAID 0, RAID 1, RAID 5 (or the similar "RAID Z" found only on ZFS), and RAID 6 (and any nested combination of those like 1+0) via ZFS and now has the ability to boot from a ZFS volume on both x86 and UltraSPARC. Through SVM, Solaris 10 and earlier versions support RAID 1 for the boot filesystem, and adds RAID 0 and RAID 5 support (and various nested combinations) for data drives.

Never forget corporate-speak easily slides in the word to call lawyers guns, these bullet-like points.

talk pages about section titles

Usability initiative

http://usability.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Prototype#What_links_here._Will_it_ever_accept_section_names.3F

says

What links here. Will it ever accept section names?

What links to a section? The tighter organization of a more highly efficient and structured Wikipedia of the future, that's what links to a section. Wikipedia is forever. In that future Wikipedia will need a what links here for sections. Currently we have at W:WP:MOS#Section management:

When linking to a section, as a courtesy, go to that article's section and leave an editor's note to remind others that the title is linked. List the names of the linking articles, so that if the title is altered, others can fix the links without having to perform exhaustive searches.

For example: ==Evolutionary implications==

Now, section naming is just as structural to an encyclopedia as are its outline and its categories. This is because the name of a section determines:

the outline of the article;
the growth pattern of the article;
the articles that spin-off of the summary article when it outgrows itself;
the link precision of inter-article links made by editors.

But sections naming guidelines are not as organized as article W:WP:naming guideline's. Flippant naming of sections causes name-flipping in the future restructuring. Currently there is no easy way to change the name of a section because of the difficulty of the manual efforts of searching a what links here list of article's wikitext one-by-one. This must be addressed at some point. A highly visible article, has the order of a thousand links to it. By contrast it is easy to change a category or an outline element.

The What links here page could just evolve a tiny bit of intelligence into the "insides" of the text box widget titled Page, so that it accepts the '#" character. Currently it just kicks the section name out. It's the little evolutionary implications in life that are important.

Cpiral 18:45, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Your valued opinion on section naming

We spoke before about the subject of how to name sections. I find myself without a decent debate to my recent insight about naming article sections in general. During our past discussion, and having read and your links pertaining to that discussion, I found your analytical skills to be respectable.

Would you please consider the merit of this idea for Wikipedia:

For articles whose subject may include many competing products, section names should not normally contain the products names. Such sections might be better named more permanently. Any link to any section may become more structural than even categories or outlines, because changing a section name later can become more difficult than changing the structural elements in a category or outline. Notability guidelines do not directly limit the content of articles, and structuring by product name encourages size, tempts WP:COI, and may increase bias and zealous editing in such articles.

After all, WP Layout and WP MOS share similar concerns, and I note you and WhatAmIdoing are regulars at WP Layout discussions. Care to join this MOS discussion? Thanks anyway. — Cpiral Cpiral 20:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm busy right now. This is a quick analysis, but this is what I see.

Editors ask how, how do I determine whether products names would be an appropriate header? Spend more time defining a criteria, you've got "normally"; maybe "reasonable", "notable", "in non-controversial cases" (negated appropriated, of course).
"might be" is weak. The guideline needs to be clear and sure. Strive to break it down to one word: "is". While witting Wikipedia:Layout#Headings and sections, WhatamdIdoing and I strove to look for the clearest wording.[2]
You've probably read George Orwell, Animal Farm? 1984? One issue I see emerging here is what Orwell saw in his policymakers in his day. Besides his politics, he did make several important contributions to witting. When you have the time, give it a read. Sentence three "Any link to any section may[..]" seems kind of ambiguous and abstract, try to be concrete. I think you might also be able to (1) omit it or (2) propose it separately.
Like the previous, the last half of the last sentence is probably unnecessary. It sounds like your trying to defend the guideline. In disputes, guidelines and polices are used as appeals to authority. They expect guidelines to be already well thought-out, and in no need of further explanation. Or if they do need explanation, its better to have them come to the discussion and have it clearly drawn out. Of course it's probably not worth a total omission. A new practice I've seen is putting those defenses in a <ref>.

This is what I can give you, if its not enough, feel free to ask again. ChyranandChloe (talk) 05:21, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

The goose whose fingers fly off the golden eggs. I thank you. — Cpiral Cpiral 05:48, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

And the farmer who put the ax the goose thinking that there's be more golden eggs, I hope you realize that this story doesn't end well (here's youtube if you don't want to read), except rather than dealing with greed we deal with what we call in the psychology department: optimism bias, which, clinically, is characterized by weakened activity in the amygdala. (Like psychoactive drugs, don't participate in one of those early day psychology experiments where they'd put lesion in your brain to figure out what happened when a part didn't work.) ChyranandChloe (talk) 06:04, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

One dose of optimism bias weakens processing and memory of emotional reactions, but has that story's psychoactive radiation. One dose of Wikipedia is not that important and then it's OK. It's a big world, and an even bigger story. I can also live with Wikipedia is forever: though it's not really true, it motivates.

In chapter two, WP:Naming conventions gets a Section titles part. Cpiral and company gather all the section naming material from Layout and Manual of Style and have fun with the {{naming conventions}} template.

There is no coherent naming guideline for section titles, yet section naming is just as structural to an encyclopedia as are its outline and its categories. This is because the name of a section determines:

the outline of the article;
the growth pattern of the article;
the articles that spin-off of the summary article when it outgrows itself;
the link precision of inter-article links made by editors who only go by titles, and not content.

There is no what links here for sections and so currently we have at W:WP:MOS#Section management:

When linking to a section, as a courtesy, go to that article's section and leave an editor's note to remind others that the title is linked. List the names of the linking articles, so that if the title is altered, others can fix the links without having to perform exhaustive searches.

For example:

==Evolutionary implications==

Seems both WP:Naming convention (section naming) and books are yet primitive, chapter one-ish, because they've not yet been seen in the larger sense. In the chapter three, Wikipedia, becomes a literary machine that provides linking at the tumbler level.

I guess I'm trying to get Wikipedia from the articulation level of chapter one, Growth, to the sectional level of chapter two, Structure: The naming, content, and linking of sections titles. Our duty to basic content is to describe the sources, but our duty to this wiki is to our outline, our categories, our linking, and our sectionalization. I know I'm trying to save future editors the hassle of restructuring the foundation while the house is sitting o'top. — Cpiral Cpiral 23:02, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikiprojects and section titles

Section names in technical articles

To discuss the section names of the following articles:

There are three discussions ongoing that relate to the general efficiency of the future structure of our technical articles' inter-linking and interrelation.

The issues are section naming and article sizing.

Quick overview of the ideas I bring up: I propose as a guidline:

For articles whose subject may include many competing products, section names should not normally contain the products names. Such sections might be better named more permanently. Any link to any section may become more structural than even categories or outlines, because changing a section name later can become more difficult than changing the structural elements in a category or outline. Notability guidelines do not directly limit the content of articles, and structuring by product name encourages size, tempts WP:COI, and may increase bias and zealous editing in such articles.

And the Wikipedia:Manual of style#Section headings currently says:

Section names should not explicitly refer to the subject of the article, or to higher-level headings, unless doing so is shorter or clearer. For example, Early life is preferable to His early life when his refers to the subject of the article; headings can be assumed to be about the subject unless otherwise indicated.

Join the discussion at WT:Manual_of_Style#Section_names_should_not_normally_contain_trademarked_products. Happy editing!

— Cpiral Cpiral 00:14, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

^ "Apple Mac OS X Server File Systems". Retrieved 2008-04-23.
^ "FreeBSD System Manager's Manual page for GEOM(8)". Retrieved 2009-03-19.
^ "freebsd-geom mailing list - new class / geom_raid5". Retrieved 2009-03-19.
^ "FreeBSD Kernel Interfaces Manual for CCD(4)". Retrieved 2009-03-19.
^ "The Software-RAID HOWTO". Retrieved 2008-11-10.
^ "RAID setup". Retrieved 2008-11-10.
^ Using WindowsXP to Make RAID 5 Happen

[1] "Apple Mac OS X Server File Systems". Retrieved 2008-04-23.

[2] "FreeBSD System Manager's Manual page for GEOM(8)". Retrieved 2009-03-19.

[3] "freebsd-geom mailing list - new class / geom_raid5". Retrieved 2009-03-19.

[4] "FreeBSD Kernel Interfaces Manual for CCD(4)". Retrieved 2009-03-19.

[5] "The Software-RAID HOWTO". Retrieved 2008-11-10.

[6] "RAID setup". Retrieved 2008-11-10.

[7] Using WindowsXP to Make RAID 5 Happen

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]