text:
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Headings

Why use second level headings???
I noted in the manual of style that it states you begin with "==" as the first level of headings. Why is this done instead of starting with "=" which is the top level? It seems redundant to me that we even have this first level if the manual of style directs us all to start at the second level. Enigmatical 23:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

 * The article title is at h1 or "=". Thus the first heading starts at h2, "==". Dysprosia 11:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Then why does "=" map to h1 instead of h2? It basically means that we will never use "=" EVER and thus it seems a complete waste, causing an additional 2 characters per heading for absolutely no reason. Enigmatical 22:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

 * It is still used, just not for mainspace articles. I don't have a link to an example, but I have seen it used in the Talk pages of some templates, where the Talk page is divided into "=Usage=" and "=Discussion=", so that when a person clicks on the "+" to start a new discussion section, it gets put under the super-section "=Discussion=". It also of course is bigger, which someone might want for some purpose; there are undoubtedly uses that aren't thought of in this discussion here which may be used now or in the future. It might, for example, diminish errors to have sections require two characters "==" rather than one "=" for accidents. —Centrx→talk • 23:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Questions in headings
Do we discourage headings that ask a question? I'd thought we did, but I can't find anyhting in the MOS about it. If not, perhaps we should. Sections headed by questions are often used to argue a point. -Will Beback 00:13, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Using title case in this title
Using sentance case in titles looks ugly, however I don't think I can influence that. But what makes you write the title "Manual of Style" in title case then?

 * Using title case (= capitalizing almost every word) in headings merely because it is a heading looks ugly, destroys valuable information about names (proper nouns) that might occur as part of headings, and is not common practice among many English publishers. Therefore, Wikipedia does not do it. However, "Manual of Style" is a proper noun here, the name of a document called "Manual of Style" (like the name of a movie or book), and therefore correctly capitalized in a sentence case heading. This has nothing to do with the use of title case as an additional form of emphasis for section headings (which are generally not proper nouns). Capitalizing a phrase because it is the name of an entity is ok. Capitalizing something because it is a heading of an article or section is not ok. For example "Recurring themes in discussions on the Manual of Style" is correct use of sentence case, involving the correctly capitalized proper noun "Manual of Style". Markus Kuhn 18:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Sentence Case? Look at the information in the Web Style Guide v3 (at webstyleguide.com), "Typographic Emphasis" section in Chapter 8. Has some very pertinent information about the use of capitalisation and its affect on legibility and accessibility - applicable to print as well as web. DMcC (talk) 11:48, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Too strong
This manual says:

 * Capitalize the first letter of the first word and any proper nouns in headings, but leave the rest lower case.

Everybody knows I'm one of the most active enforcers of this doctrine. But I think that like a number of other things in Wikipedia's style manuals, it's too strong. It should say something to the general effect of

 * In headings, capitalize the first letter of the first word and any proper nouns or other words for which there is specific reason to capitalize, but leave the rest lower case.

The style manuals say "only" too often. Michael Hardy 19:57, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

 * Can you give some examples for other reasons? Abbreviations come to mind. Anything else? If people find that the current phrasing is not easy enough to understand, we could also add a sentence that clarifies what we really want: "In other words, use the same rules for capitalization in headings that you would apply in normal sentences." Markus Kuhn 21:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Link vs Links
What is the current school of thought about replacing External links with External link when only one link is present? --After Midnight 0001 01:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

 * Pointless, IMO. There's nothing wrong with it. older ≠ wiser 01:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

 * Keep as "links" per (1) so-called Eventualism or the like; and/or (2) it only takes making one link into two to mean the section's title should use "links" regardless of how many more links are added thereafter. Regards, David Kernow (talk) 23:57, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Trivia sections
I come across many WP articles with sections headed "Trivia". Most often, the section includes references to the article's subject in literature or popular culture. Occasionally, the section is used for miscellaneous interesting facts that for some reason are not included other sections. In my opinion, a "Trivia" section is not encyclopedic. Usually, I either change the title to something more descriptive and appropriate or, less often, eliminate the section altogether and work its contents into other sections of the article. I think it would be helpful to have a guideline on this. What do others think? Finell (Talk) 07:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

 * See Trivia and Avoid trivia sections in articles. —Centrx→talk • 07:10, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

 * If nothing else, I rename the section "Miscellany" unless the contents do seem more trivial (inconsequential, frivolous, petty or the like) than disconnected/isolated "factoids". When they're the latter, they usually seem fit to convert into bullet points. I agree that a "Trivia" section is not encyclopedic. Regards, David Kernow (talk) 07:30, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Capitalization
I believe that in an encyclopedia especially, proper American grammer should be used. As everyone should know, a Title is always capitalized. Therefore, I believe every single title on every single page should have proper grammer, not the current wikipedia grammer.--Golich17 20:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

 * Grammar and style are not the same thing. What you are talking about is Wikipedia style—there is no such thing as Wikipedia grammar. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 20:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

 * I believe, as an international collaborative project, Wikipedia should carefully avoid those American typographic aberrations that feel particularly cruel, unusual and impractical to the rest of the English-reading world. The top two are the so-called "title case" (capitalization of most words in headings) and the habit of moving punctuation inside quotation marks where the punctuation is not part of the quotation. Both habits simply destroy valuable information, have no practical advantage, and have never been an element of English grammar. Markus Kuhn 23:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

 * They aren't necessarily proper grammar in America either. —Centrx→talk • 10:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I've written for academic journals and newspapers, have published a book, and have worked with over 100 editors over the last 25 years. In all of those works, editors require that titles be capitalized. I don't have Strunk & White in front of me, but I believe it says the same thing. So why does Wikipedia use such an oddball rule about title capitalization? The Illuminated Master of USEBACA 20:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

 * There is discussion about this in the archives here and at the main Manual of Style page. One line that caught my eye is "Title case is a typographic fashion that is not very fashionable outside the United States." That is: This style is peculiar to the twentieth-century United States. Strunk & White doesn't say anything about this, and neither does the Chicago Manual of Style appear to, though the OED uniformly lists books in sentence case. I don't see any reason why title case should be used; it is an ugly monstrosity, certain publisher's preferences notwithstanding. —Centrx→talk • 01:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

The use of capital letters for headings is commonplace. How on earth can a few uninformed individuals change a standard practice taught to most third grade elementary students? It appears, for example, that Centrx thinks it is "ugly" and that, amazingly is his reason for not liking it. ???????????? 14thArmored 15:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Both capitalization styles are commonplace. Go to the Google News front page, and you will see both used by major publications.  Encyclopaedia Britannica (at least the online version) uses the same sentence-style capitalization as Wikipedia. As Centrx said, this has already been discussed in the archives and elsewhere for the past however many years.  Wikipedia has chosen one style and stuck with it. -SpuriousQ (talk) 23:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

At the newspaper I edit, sentence case is specifically used in headlines, article subheadings, decks, breakout quotes, informational graphics and all other typographical elements. It's hardly universal to capitalize everything, and to my eye, it's neither pretty nor helpful. The presence of a capital letter should tell readers something - by capitalizing everything, we dilute that message. FCYTravis 21:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

 * Please note that an encyclopeia is not a newspaper, so your example is irrelevant. The Chicago Manual of Style capitalizes the first letter of each primary word in its section headings, as does the Encyclopedia Britannica.  So tell me again how Wikipedia should not be following the same rules? 14thArmored 21:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

 * Does the Chicago Manual of Style address webpage formatting...? Just wondering, David Kernow (talk) 21:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

 * As a purely practical matter, sentence case is what our 1,500,000 articles currently use. Let's not change this standard on a whim, or we'll have a mess of conflicting capitalisations between and even within articles. And yes, I prefer sentence case as an aesthetical matter. Sandstein 21:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

 * I support continuing the use of the sentence case. It has served Wikipedia well over the years, and changing Wikipedia style so dramatically at this point would require an enormous amount of work to change the titles of pretty much every article here, a job that I'm emphatically not volunteering for.  I think that the sentence case is rather elegant, and like the Encylopedia Britannica, Wikipedia can set a consistent style for all articles- there's no reason that we have to change to their manual of style instead of continuing to use our own. -FisherQueen (Talk) 22:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed - we're free to adopt our own style as long as it's consistent and consistently enforced. There may be some things we should examine changing and some things we should have done differently.  This is not one of them.  It's purely an issue of style and aesthetics; we've made our choice and there's no reason to expend the *massive* amount of effort necessary to change it.  --ElKevbo 01:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

For biographies of authors/scholars: "Books", "Publications" or "Bibliography"?
What would be the best heading for the list of books a subject has written/edited/published? I was editing a biographical article for wikification, and certain of my edits were consecutively reverted:. I think that "Bibliography" (with the shortest, simplest sub-headings possible for languages) is the most appropriate language, but clearly the creator of the article (and an anonymous editor that might be him accidentally signed out) disagrees. The topic was not brought up for discussion or explains in the edit summary, so I don't know why.

Thought? LeaHazel : talk : contribs 16:37, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

 * Bibliography is the standard, correct term. —Centrx→talk • 06:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

 * Thank you. LeaHazel : talk : contribs 17:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Rhetorical questions in headers
Should we avoid rhetorical questions in headers? For an example see Y2K. Any opinions? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 03:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

 * In general at least, yes. Headers should be straight descriptions. However, in some cases as in this one it may for the moment be difficult to come up with an appropriately descriptive header, and the rhetorical question at least conveys the idea. —Centrx→talk • 08:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Italicization of works of art in section headings
I recently made some edits to the Garamond page that were later edited back by another user. If you go to the Contemporary use of Garamond types section, you'll see that the second sub-section there discusses the font's use in the hardcover editions of the Harry Potter novels. Originally, I italicized “Harry Potter” in the sub-section header (per WP:MOS-T) because it is the title of a work of art (series of novels). My edits were changed back by GearedBull, and his edit summary included this text: "...removed italicization of Harry Potter, does not meet wiki MOS criteria for use of italics." I’ve been reading through the numerous MOS pages on sections and section headings, and I haven’t found any instances where it says not to italicize the titles of works of art in section titles. Is there a definitive Wikipedia yes-or-no guideline for this? —BrOnXbOmBr21 11:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Ampersands
What is the deal with totally discouraging "&" ? It really isn't all that 'special' a character, and makes for a very tidy connection between two summed up words. MadMaxDog 13:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

 * The ampersand is special in that it is neither letter nor punctuation. It is a stylized glyph for writing the Latin word "et". Many people feel that it is not a valid element of English grammar and therefore avoid using it in normal sentences and headings and restrict its use to abbreviations (&c., &al.) and some proper nouns (e.g., company names). I tend to agree. (If you prefer ideographic writing systems that almost have a special symbol for each word, try Written Chinese or Blissymbols.) Markus Kuhn 13:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Conflict with Biography on section heading sequence
The Biography template puts 'See also' just before 'External links', which is in conflict with this section. I think the Biography template should be changed to be in sync. See: Template:Biography and: Manual of Style (headings) Flatterworld 21:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

 * Please note that "It is okay to change the sequence of these appendices...." --ElKevbo 01:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Long headings that summarize the contents of each section
There has been some talk page debate about the heading style in Glucokinase. What do you think? Should the manual of style say something about it? I'm specifically looking at this version:. --Itub 11:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Use of bold and italics in headings
I propose an addition to this guideline along the lines of "Don't use bold or italic markup in a heading unless you just absolutely have to." Sometimes I come across headings with bold or italic (or both) markup, such as " == Discography == ". I've always removed these, assuming they were against the MOS, but I was reading it today was surprised to see no prohibition against this markup.

I personally think it's a good idea to insert something of this nature into the MOS, if only to make things look uniform and nicer. I think there should be exceptions, though, in the case of media titles or whatnot, so editors could still make headings like, say, " == Public reaction to Star Wars == ".

Comments? --Wayne Miller 20:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

 * Agreed. —Centrx→talk • 05:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Since there's no objections, I've gone ahead and made the change: Manual of Style (headings). --Wayne Miller 21:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Redundant info
If an article is about a fictional character, and that fact is stated in the very first sentence of the article, is it appropriate to title the first section " ==Fictional character biography== " ? It seems not only redundant, but like we're treating the reader as a dummy. Dreadlocke ☥  18:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, there's no other biographical material in the article that might confuse the reader, it's all about the fictional character. Dreadlocke  ☥  18:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

"Biography" as headings
I am becoming increasing annoyed at the use of "biography" as a heading in an article, because of the redundancy it lends to the article, resulting in poor prose. Just as how it has been agreed upon that it's redundant to have a heading called "About the record" in an article about a song (since the entire article is, in essence, about the record) so too is it redundant to use "biography" as a heading, since the entire article is a biography.

It looks extremely ridiculous. Can we get rid of it? Please? Oran e  (talk)  04:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * For an encylopedia, there's no way "biography" as a heading is going to be banned. I don't see how having that heading results in poor prose. Take a look at these GA/FA articles with "biography" as a heading: "Weird Al" Yankovic, The Game (rapper), Frank Black, Peter Jennings, Kate Bush, Nick Drake, Alison Krauss, Witold Lutoslawski, Jenna Jameson, Amanda Bynes, Rachel Bilson, Keira Knightley, Larisa Oleynik, Alex Pettyfer, Brandon Routh, Kevin Spacey, Dylan and Cole Sprouse, Evan Rachel Wood.

 * I think "biography" in the title looks good in those articles. Maybe you have other headings in mind? Spellcast 06:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * First off, I'm not calling for a "ban." I'm just requesting that we consider other options. Also, what's so special/different about an encyclopedia that would make "biography" as a heading so right/hard to ban? Thirdly, I am aware of the use of "biography" in these articles. But that's what I'm trying to change. Also, just because many people do it, that doesn't make it right.

 * I'm not sure what would look good in an article. "Life and career," "Career" and many others could fit.

 * But again, Biography is a genre of writing that gives an account of the events of someone's life, as well as an interpretation of that person's life to form a cohesive report. It cannot be designated as a section within a biographical article. What we are having is a biographical article with a topic/section entitled "biography," which doesn't make sense. I know that it's semantics, but it's little details like these that influence the larger picture. Oran e   (talk)  06:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Order of headings
The order of headings which gives preference to Wikified content over non-Wiki content (See also first) has been established since at least 2005. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 03:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Using "The" in section headers
This page proscribes starting section headers with "the" in all cases. Why? I agree that when a section is about a general topic, its header should not begin with the, but, for instance, when writing a battle article, I don't want to write a section about "battle", I want to write a section about "the battle" in question. Any objections to changing this? --RobthTalk 03:30, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes. Give me an example where you require it.  I've worked on a number of battle pages, and I've never seen a need for it. —Viriditas | Talk 06:17, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, Battle of Arginusae, which I just finished working on, currently contains a section called "the battle" and one called "the relief force", both of which sound much more natural when talking about a specific battle and a specific relief force than the generalized form. We have the definite article for a reason; it allows us to be specific in this way, and sometimes it's appropriate to be specific in this fashion in section headings. --RobthTalk 06:50, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link. The best advice I can give you is to take a look at other articles, like WWII, Battle of the Bulge, etc.  That should give you some ideas.  —Viriditas | Talk 10:02, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, Battle of the Bulge is a great example of why this is a silly requirement. Note the subsection entitled "allies prevail"; that's silly.  "The allies" of WWII are never referred to without the definite article, and there's no reason that we should break with that standard usage just to meet some arbitrary requirement we've imposed on ourselves. --RobthTalk 17:49, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I gave you two links, but I suggest reviewing many more. The WWII link uses headers appropriately (IMO) whereas the BotB does not.  —Viriditas | Talk 20:58, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

 * This seems like a baseless, artificial requirement -- at least as regards the definite article. We have Featured articles that violate this proscription. Belton House, Matthew Brettingham, Buckingham Palace, Cathedral of Magdeburg, Dürer's Rhinoceros, IG Farben Building, Action potential, Antarctic krill and so on. Note that I checked only a few of these to see if the headings included "The" as of FA status. older ≠ wiser 22:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not baseless. There are a number of related guidelines that have been around for some time, like Strunk's Elements of Style. —Viriditas | Talk 22:14, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Are you saying this guidance is from Strunk? Where exactly? The only reference I can see that is close is for Titles in the section A Few Matters of Form, where it says "Omit A or The from titles when you place the possessive before them", which is not really applicable to the dubious guideline under discussion. Are there any common style guides that recommend this? In any case, if it does not reflect Wikipedia practice as represented by our Featured Articles, it should not be a guideline in the MOS. older ≠ wiser 22:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The writer of the guideline may have been influenced by Strunk, both by the title convention you quote, as well as by others, such as omitting needless words, etc. MLA, APA and other research guidelines expand it. I'm genuinely curious: how does using a or the in section titles inform or help the reader? It appears to be needless. I've also noticed that many published,  scholarly books avoid the use of articles in chapter/section headings.  For example, I'm using a book by Myron A. Marty for an article I'm working on at the moment.  Marty's book is an historical analysis of the sixties in the U.S.  The book contains 33 subsections, of which only two use the, and as far as I can tell, he uses them for emphasis. Less serious books on the same subject, do use the articles on a consistent basis.  In most instances, a, an, and the should not be used in headings.  Describing the topic without the use of these articles is effective, and as far as I can see, encyclopedic. —Viriditas | Talk 23:37, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The point is that there are certain subjects that can only be correctly referred to using the definite article. "The allies" above is a good example.  Scholarly books do not use "the" when it is unnecessary, but they do use it when it is (looking at G.E.M. De Ste. Croix's "The origins of the Peloponnesian War", perhaps the definitive scholarly work on that subject, I would say that about one quarter to one half of the section headers begin with "the").  A section about "allies" is not the same as a section about "the allies"; a section about "Megarian decrees" is not the same as one about "The Megarian decrees". Simplicity is preferable when it can be achieved without obscuring meaning, but should not be sought at the expense of clarity. We shouldn't draw an arbitrary line that restricts our ability to communicate effectively in subject headers. --RobthTalk 06:59, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Again, I have no idea who wrote that particular guideline or why, but I think it works. I found a few informal rules  of grammar in The St. Martin's Guide to Writing that might apply to headings: "Use no article before a plural count noun when it does not refer to a specific entity...Use no article before a noncount noun when the reference is general."  Strangely enough, it appears both of these rules describe most headings.  I don't know if I hit gold or if I'm digging a deeper hole.  :)  —Viriditas | Talk 08:57, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * But sometimews we do refer to a specific entity, and sometimes the reference is not general. I don't think the guideline "works"; I just think we've for some reason accepted it and written unnecessarily weird headings as a result; there are certainly style guidelines that sort of relate to this question, but I don't know that anyone-even Strunk and White, who went way down the road of laying down hard and fast guidelines even in iffy cases--goes so far as to prohibit "the" in headers.  We can certainly advise against it when it would be unncecessary verbiage, but sometimes it's necessary. --RobthTalk 12:17, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with some of your points, but I feel more research is necessary. Just so we are all on the same page, additional  information about this subject may be found under keywords: determiner deletion.  —Viriditas | Talk 21:44, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not entirely sure more research is necessary. I see no evidence that even one stylesheet gives a similar prohibition, and there is evidence that scholarly publications do not follow it--certainly not strictly, and many not at all.  Somebody, at some point, wrote this into the MoS; that simple action shouldn't create so much inertia that we're afraid to change it for good reason. --RobthTalk 23:47, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I've concluded my research. I think it was necessary to find out why the guideline exists, and I believe I've done just that, although it should be obvious to anyone who works in the media.  The proscription is a generally accepted guideline used by journalists to construct headlines, and exceptions are allowed for clarity.  This guideline can only help Wikipedia, not hurt it, but I would like to see it modified to address any outstanding concerns. —Viriditas | Talk 00:09, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, journalists do this; newspapers and other media have to fit as much information as possible into as small a space as possible in headlines; we do not have the same space constraints that they do. Omitting "the" when redundant or unnecessary is good, but that would be best dealt with by a guideline that said "do not use redundant or unnecessary words in headlines".  If we are to use this, we should have a good explanation of why this guideline would be beneficial to Wikipedia editors, not journalists. So: what exactly does Wikipedia gain from using this guideline, as opposed to just saying "don't use unnecessary or redundant words in headers"? --RobthTalk 01:05, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has space constraints; article size limitations require long articles to be split into sections, subsections, and eventually new articles on subtopics (see WP:SS). So we impose size constraints for the sake of the poor reader.  Indefinite articles are unnecessary in most headings for the same reason; the reader expects to be informed with a  clear, simple, and direct heading; determiners can even be misused to mislead the reader.  The benefits of the guideline outweigh the risks.  —Viriditas | Talk 03:32, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, we have space constraints, but unlike newspapers, we do not need to squeeze the most attention-grabbing phrase possible into the smallest possible headline; please explain how not starting headers with "the" helps us deal with our space constraints. I agree that indefinite articles are almost always unncecessary, and indefinite articles are often unnecessary, but this is not always the case; what does this guideline give us that a proscription on using unnecessary words would not.  How exactly can determiners be used to mislead the reader? Please give an example.  --RobthTalk 05:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Indefinite and definite articles are unnecessary in headings, but exceptions for clarity should be allowed.   Headings should use concise terms that summarize the topic. Naming conventions (definite and indefinite articles at beginning of name) should be synchronized with this guideline, as these names are often used in headings.  The New York Public Library Writer's Guide to Style and Usage quotes Roy H. Copperud on the misleading use of the definite article the: "Careless use of the may confer a distinction that is either inaccurate, unintended, or both.  Referring to John Jones as "the vice-president of the Smith Corporation" implies that the corporation has only one vice-president.  "Laurence Olivier, the actor" is acceptable...referring to...Hazel Gooch...of Broken Bottle, Iowa, as "the [rather than an]  actress" leaves the reader...rattled...his ignorance of Miss Gooch is nothing to be ashamed of."  —Viriditas | Talk 22:17, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

 * I realiz/se I avoid prefixing "The" much/most if not nearly all the time, probably because it's redundant much/most if not all nearly all the time... Regards, David Kernow (talk) 00:01, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

 * Add me as another who doesn't see the point of this proscription. Looking at the sources I used for Walter Model, none of them seem to have a problem with "The" beginning a chapter heading. It may not be a particularly common practice, but it's certainly present. Heck, one of them (Atlas of the Second World War, ed. Peter Young) uses "The _____" as a section head nearly all the time: "The battle of Leyte Gulf", "The fall of Tobruk", "The Arctic convoys", etc. The proscription seems more suited for newspaper/magazine article titles, not scholarly works: I can see a newspaper headline "Allies prevail", but the same in a history book would probably have "The" inserted in front. -- Hongooi 07:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Links in headings
I don't understand the basis for this point of style. It may be possible, but it is difficult to change the default way that headings are coloured, first, and underlined when a mouse is over them. Lynx never has trouble highlighting links in standard HTML. What browser settings does this reflect? It's worth noting that <body> tags contain a colour for links that over-rides your default. The basis for no links in headings is null. Brewhaha@edmc.net 10:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Best practices and how to determine the "name" for a section.
I primarily edit Sports related articles. Many of the section headings are poorly constructed (at least in my mind). Take the Oakland Raiders article. The franchise history section seems titled more by POV statements. Is there any guideline in place that discusses "how to determine the sections name"? If not - should there be? Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat 08:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Use of subheadings as first-level as a matter of style preference
I've run across a few edits and editors that appear to prefer to use === and ==== as the primary heading for new sections in some situations. Can this manual of style say anything on this? See diff and diff. Should we always begin with == when it's not a subheading? My preference and from what I understand of this manual section is that we should begin with the h2 section heading. What does everyone else think? Looking for some clarification here. Cheers, --Rkitko (talk) 15:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

 * I also personally prefer to begin with the h2 section heading—when outlining in English (as in preparation for an academic paper or work of fiction), one does not start with an "A" (the equivalent of an h3 heading), but with the Roman numeral "I" (the top level/h2 heading). DocWatson42 05:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

 * Agreed. So do you think that the nesting section of the manual speaks to that clearly enough, or does it require a statement that would discourage the use of subheadings as primary headings as a matter of personal preference, such as in the two examples given above? --Rkitko (talk) 12:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

 * From a strictly technical (and web-usability) angle, the first heading in an article should be "==", which equates to a tag, as the is the article name, and sub-sections are sub because they're coming off of that one. For example, look at the outline of Darth Vader. EVula // talk // ☯  // 19:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Why retain this submanual
I've compared this with MOS's section on headings, and wonder why on earth this is a separate page, given the small amount of extra information it contains. Can anyone think of a good reason that the additional information should not be simply added to MOS and this page deleted? Tony  (talk)  11:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I find it useful to refer to WP:HEAD as a separate page. Perhaps a better solution might be to gut the MOS's section on headers, and put more detail here? Grace notes T § 19:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Unsupported personal statement. Any detail/logic behind this, apart from that you personally are used to coming here? My objection is that there are currently two locations for this information in MOS, and that this one contains so little extra that it should be deleted and the text rationalised. Apart from all else, this text is very poorly contructed and written. Tony   (talk)  00:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The Bronx
I think we would agree that the above is the proper form of its Header when so needed. However, what about the CIA? Or the Cheka? --Ludvikus 02:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

title: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Headings


text:
B(e) star

A B[e] star, frequently called a B[e]-type star, is a B-type star with distinctive forbidden neutral or low ionisation emission lines in its spectrum. The designation results from combining the spectral class B, the lowercase e denoting emission in the spectral classification system, and the surrounding square brackets signifying forbidden lines. These stars frequently also show strong hydrogen emission lines, but this feature is present in a variety of other stars and is not sufficient to classify a B[e] object. Other observational characteristics include optical linear polarization and often infrared radiation that is much stronger than in ordinary B-class stars, called infrared excess. As the B[e] nature is transient, B[e]-type stars might exhibit a normal B-type spectrum at times, and hitherto normal B-type stars may become B[e]-type stars.

Discovery
Many Be stars were discovered to have spectral peculiarities. One of these peculiarities was the presence of forbidden spectral lines of ionised iron and occasionally other elements.

In 1973 a study of one of these stars, HD 45677 or FS CMa, showed an infrared excess as well as forbidden lines of [OI], [SII], [FeII], [NiII], and many more.

In 1976 a study of Be stars with infrared excesses identified a subset of stars which showed forbidden emission lines from ionised iron and some other elements. These stars were all considered to be distinct from the classical main sequence Be stars, although they appeared to consist of a wide range of different types of star. The term B[e] star was coined to group these stars.

One type of B[e] star was readily identified as being highly luminous supergiants. By 1985, eight dust-shrouded B[e] supergiants were known in the Magellanic Clouds. Others were found to be definitely not supergiants. Some were binaries, others proto-planetary nebulae, and the term "B[e] phenomenon" was used to make it clear that different types of star could produce the same type of spectrum.

Classification
Following the recognition that the B[e] phenomenon could occur in several distinct types of star, four sub-types were named:
 * B[e] supergiants (sgB[e])
 * pre-main sequence B[e] stars (HAeB[e]), a subset of the Herbig Ae/Be star stars
 * compact planetary nebulae B[e] stars (cPNB[e])
 * symbiotic B[e] stars (SymB[e])

Around half of the known B[e] stars could not be placed in any of these groups and were called unclassified B[e] stars (unclB[e]). The unclB[e] stars have since been re-classified as FS CMa stars, a type of variable named for one of the earliest known B[e] stars.

Nature
The forbidden emission, infrared excess, and other features indicative of the B[e] phenomenon, themselves provide strong hints at the nature of the stars. The stars are surrounded by ionised gas which produces intense emission lines in the same way as Be stars. The gas must be sufficiently extended to allow the formation of forbidden lines in the outer low density region, and also for dust to form which produces the infrared excess. These features are common to all the types of B[e] star.

The sgB[e] stars have hot fast winds which produce extended circumstellar material, plus a denser equatorial disc. HAeB[e] are surrounded by the remains of the molecular clouds which are forming the stars. Binary B[e] stars can produce discs of material as it is transferred from one star to another through roche lobe overflow. cPNB[e] are post-AGB stars that have shed their entire atmospheres after reaching the end of their lives as actively fusing stars. The FS CMa stars appear to be binaries with a rapidly rotating mass-losing component.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: B(e) star


text:
Kaikeyi

Kaikeyi (Sanskrit: कैकेयी, IAST: Kaikeyī) is a princess of Kekeya and the queen of Kosala in the Hindu epic Ramayana. Kaikeyi is the third queen and favourite consort of King Dasharatha, who ruled Kosala from its capital, Ayodhya. She is the mother of Bharata.

Out of Dasharatha's three wives, Kaikeyi exerts the most influence. Formerly the princess of Kekeya, she is described to have served as an able counsellor to her husband during times of war. Initially loving and motherly towards her stepson, Prince Rama, Kaikeyi's mind is poisoned by Manthara, her maid. Under her influence, Rama is exiled to the forest for a period of fourteen years.

Birth and early life
Kaikeyi is born to King Ashvapati of Kekeya shortly before her mother was exiled. She was raised with her only mother figure being her hunchbacked nursemaid, Manthara. She is raised with seven brothers, including her twin, Yudhājit.

Marriage and child
Kaikeyi is married to the king of Kosala, Dashratha. She performs the asvamedha yagna alongside Dasharatha and his two other wives in hopes of blessings for children. At the sacrifice conducted by Rishyasringa to obtain sons for the childless Dasharatha, a divine being emerged from the flames with a golden vessel filled with divine payasam (a milk delicacy) prepared by the gods. Dasharatha offers half of this divine food to Kausalya, a quarter to Sumitra (i.e., literally 'half of that which remained'), an eighth to Kaikeyi (i.e., again, 'half of that which remained'), and then, upon reflection, gives the final eighth to Sumitra again. Consequently, Kausalya gives birth to the Rama, Sumitra to twins, Lakshmana and Satrughna and Kaikeyi to Bharata.

Boons by Dasharatha
In a battle between the devas and the asuras, Dasharatha rode to Devaloka, accompanied by Kaikeyi, to help Indra fight against the asuras. The devas were at a disadvantage due to the sorcery employed by Shambara and his army of asuras. Dasharatha, riding a chariot, faced the asuras in ten directions at the same time. In this battle, his chariot had to be turned to every direction in a swift manner. During the battle, the bolt of one of the wheels slipped out, and the wheel was about to disengage when Kaikeyi inserted her thumb in the hole of the bolt, and kept the chariot steady. When the king learnt of this, he was pleased, and offered her two boons. The queen said that she would ask for those two boons in the future, as she wished for nothing right then and there.

Manthara's influence and Rama's exile
Under the custom of primogeniture, Dasharatha, with the approval of the royal assembly, selected Rama to be his heir. Kaikeyi was delighted and as happy as she would have been had it been her own son during the coronation. However, Manthara, Kaikeyi's nurse, feared that Kaikeyi would lose her status as chief queen at court if Rama ascended the throne, as Kausalya would thus become queen mother. She decided to instigate trouble. She tried to fuel Kaikeyi's jealousy and envy of Kausalya by reminding her that her son's coronation would give Kausalya her former status as the most important of Dasharatha's queens and would cut Bharata out of the line of succession forever, but this had no effect on Kaikeyi at the time.

Manthara later convinced Kaikeyi to demand two boons granted to her years earlier by Dasharatha. King Dasharatha was obliged to fulfill them. Kaikeyi demanded that Bharata be crowned king, and Rama be sent to the forest for a period of fourteen years. Hearing this, Dasharatha fell into a swoon and passed the night in a pitiable condition in Kaikeyi's palace.

Widowhood and later life
Grief-stricken, Dasharatha died of a broken heart six days after he exiled Rama from Ayodhya. Kaikeyi came to blame herself for this death. Furthermore, Bharata swore never to ascend the throne as it was his older brother's birthright. He further blamed her for his father's death and swore never to address her as "mother" again. Realising her mistake, Kaikeyi repented sending her beloved step son away for fourteen years.

After Rama's return, she apologised to him for her sins. Rama touched her feet and said there was no need to ask for forgiveness, as he did not feel bad about what happened. He insisted that Bharata forgive his mother. Further defending Kaikeyi, Rama also argued to Bharata that this is just what mothers did. Whether good or bad, he remarked, what mothers did was for the betterment of their children, not for themselves, so it is not proper to be angry with them.

Assessment

Kaikeyi's personality and her relationships are quite revealing in Ayodhya Kanda of the Valmiki Ramayana. Kaikeyi maintained strong relations with her maternal family even after her wedding to King Dasharatha. Her brother Yudhajit visits her many times and takes a keen interest in the life of her son Bharata, often taking the latter and Shatrughna away to the Kaikeya kingdom during the summer.

Kaikeyi helped her husband Dasharatha in the Dandaka forest while he was at war. While Kaikeyi saved the king in the war, as per mythology, her left hand was strong as a diamond (a boon from a Saint) so the king accompanied her during wars.

Kaikeyi was the king's favorite queen. Kaikeyi's nature is described as being temperamental and unpredictable. While she was mostly gentle, it is evident that she disliked the king spending time with his other queens. King Dasharatha mentions that he did not treat his queen Kausalya with the love she deserved due to fear of Kaikeyi's tantrums and possessiveness.

Kaikeyi seemed almost naive when it came to understanding the rights of the four princes to Ayodhya's throne. She naively mentions to her maid Manthara that Bharata can rule Ayodhya after Rama, not understanding the law of primogeniture. It is Manthara who educates Kaikeyi of the manner of succession.

Kaikeyi's naive nature and gentleness were transformed into obstinacy and a hunger for power all in the name of her son Bharata's welfare. Bharata contests her views vociferously and despises her for her act of banishing the rightful heir Rama to the forest for punishing him for no fault of his own. King Dasharatha tries to reason with her, arguing in terms of the stability of the kingdom, the people's will, and the court's decision to crown Rama, none of which seems reasonable to her. Finally, King Dasharatha renounces her, and yet he is unable to separate himself from her. He lingers on in his grief in her chambers in fear of the humiliation from everyone outside those chambers.

Films

 * Vasundhara portrayed Kaikeyi in the 1997 Telugu film Ramayanam.
 * Shanoor Sana portrayed Kaikeyi in the 2011 Telugu film Sri Rama Rajyam.

Television

 * Padma Khanna portrayed Kaikeyi in the 1987 series Ramayan and the 1988 series Luv Kush.
 * Dolly Minhas portrayed Kaikeyi in the 2002 series Ramayan.
 * Hemaakshi Ujjain portrayed Kaikeyi in the 2008 series Ramayan.
 * Manasvi Vyas portrayed Kaikeyi in the 2011 series Devon Ke Dev...Mahadev.
 * Shikha Swaroop portrayed Kaikeyi in the 2012 series Ramayan.
 * Alefia Kapadia / Reshmi Ghosh portrayed Kaikeyi in the 2015 series Sankat Mochan Mahabali Hanumaan.
 * Grusha Kapoor portrayed Kaikeyi in the 2015 series Siya Ke Ram.
 * Piyali Munshi portrayed Kaikeyi in the 2018 series Ram Siya Ke Luv Kush.
 * Tisca Chopra portrayed Kaikeyi in the 2021 web series Ramyug.
 * Shilpa Saklani portrayed Kaikeyi in the 2024 series Shrimad Ramayan.

Books
Kaikeyi is the eponymous narrator of Kaikeyi by Vaishnavi Patel, published by Redhook Books, a subsidiary of the Hachette Book Group, and a Book of the Month selection for April 2022.

title: Kaikeyi


text:
Rangitoto Island

Rangitoto Island is a volcanic island in the Hauraki Gulf near Auckland, New Zealand. The 5.5 km wide island is a symmetrical shield volcano cone capped by central scoria cones, reaching a height of 260 m. Rangitoto is the youngest and largest of the approximately 50 volcanoes of the Auckland volcanic field, having erupted in two phases about 1450 CE and 1500 CE and covering an area of 2311 ha. It is separated from the mainland of Auckland's North Shore by the Rangitoto Channel. Since World War II, it has been linked by a causeway to the much older, non-volcanic Motutapu Island.

Rangitoto is Māori for 'Bloody Sky', with the name coming from the full phrase Ngā Rangi-i-totongia-a Tama-te-kapua ("The days of the bleeding of Tama-te-kapua"). Tama-te-kapua was the captain of the Arawa waka (canoe) and was badly wounded on the island, after having lost a battle with the Tainui iwi (tribe) at Islington Bay.

Geology
Rangitoto formed during two phases of eruptions that may have lasted only 5–10 years, about 600 years ago. The first part of the eruption sequence, dated by radiocarbon methods at about NaN years ago (= 553 ± 7 yrs BP) was initially wet and produced surges of volcanic ash that mantled neighbouring Motutapu Island from alkaline olivine basalt eruptives sourced from the north cone area. The later part of the eruption dated at about NaN years ago (= 504 ± 5 yrs BP) was dry and built most of Rangitoto, erupting all the sub-alkaline basaltic lava flows of the shield and the southern scoria cone at the apex that mostly buried the north cone. The 2.3 km3 of material that erupted from the volcano was nearly as much as the combined mass produced by all the previous eruptions in the Auckland volcanic field, which were spread over nearly 200,000 years.

Eruptive history
In 2013, scientists from Auckland University reported that Rangitoto had been much more active in the past than previously thought, suggesting it had been active on and off for around 1000 years before the final eruptions around 600 years ago. This was based on recognition of a number of horizons of tiny volcanic glass shards, seemingly erupted from Rangitoto, in sediment cores from Lake Pupuke. To test this hypothesis, a 150 m deep hole was drilled through the western flank of Rangitoto in February 2014. No supporting evidence for these hypothesised small eruptions up to 1000 yrs before the main eruption of Rangitoto was found. The University scientists did, however, core a thin basalt lava flow within marine sediment dated at 6000 years old, and hypothesised that this was an even earlier eruption from Rangitoto. Civil Defence officials said the discovery did not make living in Auckland any more dangerous, but did change their view of how an eruption might proceed. These headline-grabbing results were controversial and not accepted by all geologists. In 2018 many of the original group of Auckland University geologists reported on their latest research and reinterpretation of the evidence and concluded that Rangitoto only erupted once, about 600 yrs ago, possibly in two phases. The thin lava flow within 6000 yr-old sediment in the Rangitoto drillcore has exactly the same chemistry as the lowest/oldest flows of the cored shield volcano above and has recently been shown to also have the same U-Th-Ra signature and both must have been erupted and solidified at virtually the same time. The thin "flow" is therefore likely to be basalt lava that was intruded into the sediment as the shield volcano was starting to be formed. This is similar to the situation seen on the coast at Queen Victoria Rock, near the Rangitoto Lighthouse, where lava flows have ploughed into the soft seafloor sediment and intruded into it, bringing at least one sediment slab up to high tide level. Thus no evidence has been found so far to support the hypotheses of earlier eruptions of Rangitoto between 620 and 8000 yrs ago. It is possible that Rangitoto buried a smaller and much older and unrelated volcano, a view possibly supported, but certainly not proven, by recent microfossil research from the marine sediments obtained from beneath Rangitoto in the stratigraphic drillhole.

Structure
The southern cone of Rangitoto Volcano with its own crater likely buries a more northern explosion crater and tuff ring formed during the early wet phase of eruption in the middle of the Waitemata Harbour. The external form of Rangitoto consists of a circular, gently sloping shield composed of numerous overlapping lava flows. The centre of the volcano is capped by the remains of much steeper scoria cones made of loose scoria that was erupted by dry-style fire-fountaining from several vents. Gravitational studies show a relationship with the Islington Bay Fault which strikes between Rangitoto and Mototapu islands but which is distinctly offset by about 3.5 km from the Rangitoto vents to the east of the fault and that there is a density beneath the southern cones. This along with magnetic studies has been interpreted to show a solidified intra-cone feeder dyke as the most likely explanation for the mass under the southern cone system and some buried mass to the north of the northern cone whose character can not be fully modelled but is likely to be a feeder dyke. At depth of more than 6 km the magma may have initially tracked the Islington Bay Fault in this modelling. Withdrawal of magma back down the throat of the volcano at the end of the eruptions has resulted in slight subsidence of the scoria cones. This has created a moat-like ring around the central scoria cones, which the main track to Rangitoto's summit passes through on the way to the summit and gives a distinctive shape to the island. In some parts of the island, fields of clinker-like black basalt lava are exposed where vegetation has yet to colonise the surface of the youngest lava flows. About 200 metres from the top of the mountain on the eastern side visitors can walk through sections of two lava tubes — cave-like tubes left behind after the passage of liquid lava. The more accessible of the caves are signposted. Lava tubes are formed when low-viscosity molten lava known as pahoehoe flows and cools on the outside due to contact with the ground and air, to form a hard crust allowing the still-liquid molten lava to continue to flow through inside. In several places the lava tube roof has collapsed thus providing several different entrances to the one elongate tube. A torch is needed to explore the caves. The longest known cave is about 120 m long.

Biology
Because there are virtually no streams on the island, plants rely on rainfall for moisture. It has the largest forest of pohutukawa trees in the world, as well as many northern rātā trees. In total, more than 200 species of trees and flowers thrive on the island, including several species of orchid, as well as more than 40 types of ferns. The vegetation pattern was influenced by the more recent eruptions creating lava flow crevices where pōhutukawa trees (Metrosideros ssp.) grow.

The island is considered especially significant because all stages from raw lava fields to scrub establishment and sparse forests are visible. As lava fields contain no soil of the typical kind, windblown matter and slow breaking-down processes of the native flora are still in the process of transforming the island into a more habitable area for most plants (an example of primary succession), which is one of the reasons why the local forests are relatively young and do not yet support a large bird population. However, the Kākā, a New Zealand-endemic parrot, is thought to have lived on the island in pre-European times.

Goats were present on Rangitoto in large numbers in the mid 19th century and survived until the 1880s. Fallow deer were introduced to Motutapu in 1862 and spread to Rangitoto, but disappeared by the 1980s. The brush-tailed rock-wallaby was introduced to Motutapu in 1873, and was common on Rangitoto by 1912, and the brushtail possum was introduced in 1931 and again in 1946. Both were eradicated in a campaign from 1990 to 1996 using 1080 and cyanide poison and dogs. The eradication campaign did not have a significant effect on bird species diversity and abundance, due to the presence of other predators.

Stoats, rabbits, mice, rats, cats and hedgehogs remained a problem on the island, but the Department of Conservation (DOC) aimed to eradicate them beginning with the poisoning of black rats, brown rats and mice and in August 2011, both Rangitoto and neighbouring Motutapu Islands were officially declared pest-free with both islands now also boasting populations of newly translocated North Island saddlebacks.

As the area is a DOC-administered reserve (in partnership with the tangata whenua Ngāi Tai and Ngāti Paoa), visitors may not take dogs or other animals onto the islands.

Māori association
The volcano erupted within the historical memory of the local Māori iwi (tribes). Human footprints have been found between layers of Rangitoto volcanic ash on the adjoining Motutapu Island. Ngāi Tai was the iwi living on Motutapu, and considers both islands their ancestral home. Ngāti Paoa also has links with Rangitoto.

The name Rangitoto literally means "red sky", and is linked to a traditional story of a fight between Tama-te-kapua, captain of the Arawa canoe, and Hoturoa, captain of the Tainui canoe. The name Ngā Rangi-i-totongia-a Tama-te-kapua ("The days of the bleeding of Tama-te-kapua") refers to how Tama-te-kapua was injured in the fight. The peaks of the island were known by the names Ngā Pona Toru o Peretū ("The Three Knuckles of Peretū") or Ngā Tuaitara o Taikehu ("The Dorsal Fins of Taikehu"). Ngā Pona Toru o Peretū, often shortened to Peretū is the traditional Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki name for the three peaks of the island, and was a name given by Taikehu, a captain of the Tainui canoe.

Rangitoto is associated with many traditional stories and myths. One involves Tiriwa (the namesake of the traditil name for the Waitākere Ranges, Te Wao Nui o Tiriwa), a chief of the supernatural Tūrehu people, who uplifted Rangitoto from Karekare on the west coast, as a show of his strength. Others involve a 'tupua' couple, children of the Fire Gods. After quarreling and cursing Mahuika, the fire-goddess, they lost their home on the mainland because it was destroyed by Mataoho, god of earthquakes and eruptions, on Mahuika's behalf. Lake Pupuke on the North Shore was created in the destruction, while Rangitoto rose from the sea. The mists surrounding Rangitoto at certain times are called the tears of the tupua for their former home.

Since European colonisation
The island was purchased for £15 by the Crown in 1854, very early in New Zealand's colonisation by Europeans, and for many years served as a source of basalt for the local construction industry. It was set aside as a recreation reserve in 1890, and became a favourite spot for daytrippers. Some development occurred nonetheless. In 1892, salt works were created on 5 acre near Mackenzies Bay. The wharf and summit road were opened in 1897, with another road linking the summit to Islington Bay by 1900. For over 30 years (from 1898 to 1930), scoria was quarried from near the shoreline on the west side of Islington Bay as building material for Auckland.

From 1925 to 1936, prison labour built roads on the island and a track to the summit. Islington Bay was formed in the southeast area of the island. Formerly known as Drunks Bay, it was used as a drying out area for inebriated crews before they ventured out of the gulf. The bay is used by Auckland boat-owners as a refuge, as it is quite sheltered from the prevailing southwest winds.

Military installations were built during World War II to support the Auckland harbour defences and to house U.S. troops or store mines. The most visited remains of these installations is the old observation post on the summit. The northern shore of the island was used as a wrecking ground for unwanted ships, and the remains of several wrecks are still visible at low tide. At least 13 ships were wrecked from 1887, the last being the former Wellington and, later, Waiheke ferry, Duchess, in June 1947. (built 1897 - iron deck framing remained in 2014). Other ships include Ngapuhi (1900 - her stern remained in 2014), Jubilee (1857), Arapawa (1908), Rothesay Bay (1877), Gladbrook (ex Countess of Anglesea 1877), Elinor Vernon (1876), Polly (ex Skovland 1891), Columbia (1899 - part of the keel and frame remained in 2014), Dartford (1877) and Rarawa (1903 - the bow, framing, iron plating and stern with two propeller shaft housings were visible above the low water mark in 2014).

Baches (small holiday houses) were built around the island's edge in the 1920s and 1930s. The legality of their existence was doubtful from the start and the building of further baches was banned in 1937. Most have since been removed because of the ban and because the island has become a scenic reserve. However, 30 of the 140 baches remain, and some are being preserved to show how the island used to be, once boasting a permanent community of several hundred people, including many children. The buildings included some more permanent structures like a seawater pool built of quarried stones by convict labour, located close to the current ferry quay.

Access and tourism
Regular ferry services and island tours by tractor-trailer are provided by Fullers from Auckland city centre. A boardwalk with around 300 steps allows visitors to reach the summit and enjoy a view of the wooded crater. The distance to the summit is 2.4 km, a one–hour walk by the most direct route.

An alternative to walking, a land train, coordinated with the ferry sailings, takes visitors to a short way below the summit. Sea kayak trips from the mainland to the island are also available.

There are no campsites on the island, though there is camping at Home Bay on the adjacent Motutapu Island.

title: Rangitoto Island


text:
Excretion

Excretion is elimination of metabolic waste, which is an essential process in all organisms. In vertebrates, this is primarily carried out by the lungs, kidneys, and skin. This is in contrast with secretion, where the substance may have specific tasks after leaving the cell. For example, placental mammals expel urine from the bladder through the urethra, which is part of the excretory system. Unicellular organisms discharge waste products directly through the surface of the cell.

During life activities such as cellular respiration, several chemical reactions take place in the body. These are known as metabolism. These chemical reactions produce waste products such as carbon dioxide, water, salts, urea and uric acid. Accumulation of these wastes beyond a level inside the body is harmful to the body. The excretory organs remove these wastes. This process of removal of metabolic waste from the body is known as excretion.

Green plants excrete carbon dioxide and water as respiratory products. In green plants, the carbon dioxide released during respiration gets used during photosynthesis. Oxygen is a byproduct generated during photosynthesis, and exits through stomata, root cell walls, and other routes. Plants can get rid of excess water by transpiration and guttation. It has been shown that the leaf acts as an 'excretophore' and, in addition to being a primary organ of photosynthesis, is also used as a method of excreting toxic wastes via diffusion. Other waste materials that are exuded by some plants — resin, saps, latex, etc. are forced from the interior of the plant by hydrostatic pressures inside the plant and by absorptive forces of plant cells. These latter processes do not need added energy, they act passively. However, during the pre-abscission phase, the metabolic levels of a leaf are high. Plants also excrete some waste substances into the soil around them.

In animals, the main excretory products are carbon dioxide, ammonia (in ammoniotelics), urea (in ureotelics), uric acid (in uricotelics), guanine (in Arachnida), and creatine. The liver and kidneys clear many substances from the blood (for example, in renal excretion), and the cleared substances are then excreted from the body in the urine and feces.

Aquatic animals usually excrete ammonia directly into the external environment, as this compound has high solubility and there is ample water available for dilution. In terrestrial animals, ammonia-like compounds are converted into other nitrogenous materials, i.e. urea, that are less harmful as there is less water in the environment and ammonia itself is toxic. This process is called detoxification.

Birds excrete their nitrogenous wastes as uric acid in the form of a paste. Although this process is metabolically more expensive, it allows more efficient water retention and it can be stored more easily in the egg. Many avian species, especially seabirds, can also excrete salt via specialized nasal salt glands, the saline solution leaving through nostrils in the beak.

In insects, a system involving Malpighian tubules is used to excrete metabolic waste. Metabolic waste diffuses or is actively transported into the tubule, which transports the wastes to the intestines. The metabolic waste is then released from the body along with fecal matter.

The excreted material may be called ejecta. In pathology the word ejecta is more commonly used.

title: Excretion


text:
Bodies (2004 TV series)

Bodies is a British television medical drama produced by Hat Trick Productions for the BBC. Created by Jed Mercurio, the series first broadcast on 23 June 2004, and is based on Mercurio's book of the same name. The series is centred on specialist registrar Rob Lake (Max Beesley), who starts in a new post in the Obstetrics and gynaecology department at the fictional South Central Infirmary, under the guidance of consultant obstetrician Roger Hurley (Patrick Baladi).

The series differed from most other archetypal British hospital dramas, in that the surgical scenes were notable for their graphic nature, offering intimate detail of various procedures, and the operational complications dealt with in explicit detail. As a result, the themes were also often dark and depressing, including negligence, manipulation and death. Bodies has been described as a "dark, sometimes funny" take on a genre that had been made popular through shows such as Casualty and Holby City. In December 2009, The Times ranked Bodies in ninth place in its list of "Shows of the Decade", and in January 2010, The Guardian ranked Bodies number twenty of "The Greatest Television Dramas of All Time".

The first series was released on DVD on 30 October 2006. The second series, including the finale, was released on 26 December 2006. A complete box set was released on 9 April 2007. The show was made available via the BBC iPlayer service on 6 April 2019.

Broadcast
The first series started on BBC Three, as the channel was trying to break into hour-long dramas. BBC Two aired the series at the end of 2004. The channels co-commissioned a second series and increased the number of episodes to ten. The second series started in September 2005. The BBC did not order a third series, so a feature-length final episode was subsequently broadcast to conclude the programme in December 2006. The entire first and second series were also broadcast to American audiences on digital channel BBC America during 2005. In 2022 Netflix began streaming the series in the UK.

Cast

 * Max Beesley as Mr. Rob Lake
 * Patrick Baladi as Mr. Roger Hurley
 * Neve McIntosh as Sister Donna Rix
 * Keith Allen as Mr. Tony Whitman
 * Susan Lynch as Dr. Maria Orton
 * Tamzin Malleson as Miss Polly Grey
 * Preeya Kalidas as Dr. Maya Dutta
 * Simon Lowe as Dr. Tim Sibley
 * Karen Bryson as Hazel Melrose
 * Nicholas Palliser as Sir Paul Tennant
 * Liz Hume Dawson as Dottie Sands
 * Rhashan Stone as Tom Gorman
 * Hattie Morahan as Dr. Beth Lucas
 * Vicky Hall as Chrissy Farrell
 * Ingeborga Dapkunaite as Katya Bredova
 * Saskia Reeves as Ms Mary Dodd
 * Mary Stockley as Susannah Marshall

Pailliser portrays the same character he did in Mercurio's previous medical drama, Cardiac Arrest.

Series 1 (2004)
Lake (Max Beesley) realises that despite his friendly, professional demeanour and strong academics, his boss, Hurley (Patrick Baladi), is an incompetent surgeon who regularly bungles surgical procedures, to the detriment of his patients. Hurley is, however, protected by the principle "Doctors look after doctors", a phrase often repeated throughout the series. Initially, Lake is also protected by this principle, when his involvement in a death of a patient is covered up, although this death haunts him. Initially, Lake seeks to become a whistleblower, after seeing Hurley's gross incompetence and negligence, particularly after he badly mishandles a birth in which an abruption occurs, leaving the mother with substantial brain damage. The anaesthetist for the operation, Dr. Maria Orton (Susan Lynch), makes an official complaint against Hurley, but her colleagues close ranks around him. The pregnant Dr. Orton is ostracised, and the stress of the situation causes her to miscarry. She is eventually sectioned and admitted to a psychiatric hospital. Pressure from outside authorities, hospital politics and blackmail from Hurley eventually forces Lake into silence. Unable to oust him yet forced to work with him, Lake soon seeks a way out and finds a post at another hospital. But Hurley, despite agreeing that he should move on, changes his mind, ruins Lake's chance to escape by informing his new employers of Lake's mistakes and his real reasons for wanting to leave. At the end of the season, Hurley is shown to be in line for promotion as the hospital's clinical director. Lake, trapped in his job, comes clean to the relatives of the patient whose death he caused, so that, in his own words, he may be judged. The series ends on this cliffhanger.

Series 2 (2005)
The series continues with the main overlying storyline of the constant struggle between Hurley and Lake. This season also saw the arrival of a new departmental manager, Chrissy Farrell (Vicky Hall). At the start of the second series, Lake is about to leave the hospital but, with no real job prospects elsewhere, he decides to remain. Lake and Hurley then begin to form a respectful professional relationship, with Lake turning a blind eye to Hurley's incompetence. Despite this, Donna Rix (Neve McIntosh), a nurse with whom Lake was having an affair, views Hurley's ineptitude with increasing alarm. She starts to voice her distress and sends anonymous letters to management in an attempt to bring wider attention to this issue. Lake, seeing this, pleads with Donna to act with restraint, claiming that Hurley will be brought down but not in this fashion. Towards the end of the series, Hurley's life begins to unravel. Attempts to have a third child are scuppered after he finds out he has a low sperm count and furthermore, is suspected of having an affair with a fellow doctor, soon leading to the breakdown of his marriage.

title: Bodies (2004 TV series)


text:
Ian Adams

Ian Adams (July 22, 1937 — November 7, 2021) was a Canadian author of fiction and non-fiction novels, television, and movies. Originally a journalist, he is now best known for his writing: his most successful novels are S – Portrait of a Spy and Agent of Influence.

Childhood
Ian Adams was born in what is now Tanzania to a Lillian and Richard Adams, Irish lay missionaries administering a medical clinic in the former Belgian Congo. According to family lore, a pregnant Lillian singlehandedly canoed across a narrow stretch of Lake Tanganyika so that Adams would be born in what was then the British colony of Tanganyika rather than in the Belgian colony his parents were working in. He grew up in Central and East Africa. During World War II, both of Adams's parents joined the British Army, his mother as an ambulance driver and his father as an engineer, while three-year old Ian was sent to boarding school. Adams resented his parents for abandoning him at a young age and while the entire family moved to North America, Adams did so separately as a teenager and lived on his own in Winnipeg where he attended the University of Manitoba, studying fine arts.

Journalism
Though an accomplished painter, Adams pursued a career initially as a photojournalist and reporter. As an award-winning investigative journalist, he worked for five years at Maclean's, Canada's national news magazine, covering many national stories including "The Lonely Death of Charlie Wenjack" (Volume 80, February 1967), reprinted under the title "Why did Charlie Wenjack Die?" in The Poverty Wall in 1970.

Chanie "Charlie" Wenjack was an Indigenous First Nations child who ran away from a residential school in northern Ontario in an attempt to reach his father, 650 kilometres away. The child was found beside a CNR track, poorly dressed and dead of hunger and cold. In the Maclean's article, Adams wrote: "Under the heading The Lonely Death of Charlie Wenjack, he wrote, “It’s not so unusual that Indian children run away from the residential schools they are sent to. They do it all the time, and they lose their fingers and toes to frostbite. Sometimes they lose a leg or an arm trying to climb aboard freight trains. Occasionally, one of them dies. And perhaps because they are Indians, no one seems to care very much. So this, then, is the story of how a little boy met a terrible and lonely death, of the handful of people who became involved, and of a town that hardly noticed.”

The story resulted in a series of complaints to the magazine by readers, including the CEO of the magazine's publisher, Maclean-Hunter, who wrote Adams telling him he didn't think that sort of writing belonged in the magazine. Adams quit the publication and pursued a freelance career. In September 2012 Adams was interviewed about the Charlie Wenjack story as part of the CBC documentary "Dying For An Education". Gord Downie, lead singer of the Canadian band The Tragically Hip, cited Adams' Maclean's article as the source for his 2016 multimedia work, "Secret Path".

Adams' international stories included coverage of the Vietnam War and the coup d'état that overthrew Allende in Chile, for publications such as the Globe and Mail.

Literature
During the 1970s and 1980s Adams lived, worked and traveled extensively in South and Central America, mostly covering the so-called "dirty wars". From this period came the novel Becoming Tania (published by McClelland and Stewart), the love story of Che Guevara and his compañera Tania who was killed with Che in the Bolivian jungle. Adams' screenplay adaptation, Tango Duro, was nominated in 2005 for the Writers Guild of Canada's Best Unproduced Screenplay: the Jim Burt Prize.

His 1977 novel, S – Portrait of a Spy, led to a libel suit in which a former RCMP Security Service officer Leslie James Bennett claimed the central character, a Soviet mole who penetrated the RCMP, was modelled after him. The publisher stopped distribution of the book despite the fact that 12,000 copies had already been sold and a deal to turn the book into a movie was cancelled as a result. The case was settled out of court with Adams paying Bennett $30,000 and agreeing to add a disclaimer to the book. The novel was adapted into a play, in 1984 by Adams and Rick Salutin.

Film adaptations
Ian Adams and his writing partner and son, Riley Adams, have turned several of his seven published novels into movies. S – Portrait of a Spy, was scheduled for production as a feature film (by Alberta Filmworks) in the spring of 2006.

The Adams team with Riley as the lead writer has also written the original screenplays for two of the seven MOWs in this fall's CTV lineup. Hunt for Justice, (GalaFilms) starring William Hurt, John Corbett, and Wendy Crewson; the second original screen play, The Clark Todd Story, (ImagiNation Films and Box Films, UK) was scheduled for filming to begin early in 2006.

His 1999 novel, Agent of Influence, based on the true story of Canadian diplomat John Watkins who died while under Royal Canadian Mounted Police interrogation, was adapted by the Adams team, and aired on the national CTV network in 2003–2004. Produced by Alberta FilmWorks and Gala Films, Agent of Influence starred Christopher Plummer. The film has been sold by Alliance-Atlantis to TV networks in 132 countries, and in 2003 was recognized by the European Screenplay Writers' association as the best foreign television screenplay.

The Adams partnership created the screenplay for the full-length feature, Bad Faith, adapted from Ian Adams' novel of the same title and filmed in Calgary and Montreal during March 2000 by Alberta FilmWorks — is now distributed worldwide by Oasis under the title, Cold Blooded.

Ian Adams has also written many hours of produced television for Canadian and U.S. shows.

Novels

 * The Trudeau Papers (1971) ISBN 0-7710-0052-9
 *  Portrait of a Spy (1977)
 * Endgame in Paris (1979)
 * Bad Faith (1983) ISBN 0-920053-12-2
 * Becoming Tania (1990)
 * Agent of Influence (1999) ISBN 0-7737-3123-7

Nonfiction

 * The Poverty Wall (1970) (includes "Why Did Charlie Wenjack Die?") ISBN 0-7710-0051-0
 * The Real Poverty Report (1971)
 * Power of the Wheel - The Falun Gong Revolution (1999)

Plays

 * S: Portrait of a Spy (with Rick Salutin) (1984)

Awards
Adams' work Agent of Influence has received the following awards:
 * Best Foreign Television Screenplay Award — given by the Les 16e Rencontres Internationales de Télévision: The Euro International Film and Television Festival held March 16–23, 2003 in Reims, France.
 * Nominated for best screenplay in the Writers' Guild of Canada's 2004 MOW category.
 * Nominated for best screenplay 2003 Geminis. Agent of Influence garnered five other Gemini nominations and one Gemini — Ted Whitall best supporting actor.
 * Awarded a HUGOS "Certificate of Merit" in the Feature-Length Telefilm Drama category at the Chicago International Television Awards, March 2003.

title: Ian Adams


text:
Arndt Pekurinen

Arndt Juho Pekurinen (29 August 1905 – 5 November 1941) was a Finnish pacifist and conscientious objector.

In 1926, Pekurinen repeatedly refused mandatory conscription, leading to his imprisonment between 1929 and 1931. He refused to either wear a uniform or take arms. While Pekurinen was deeply religious, his motives were not based on his faith. His contemporaries suggested he was a communist, but he was not interested in politics. Because of his pacifist conviction, in the atmosphere of the tense 1930s, he was deemed as guilty of high treason, and the Lapua Movement harassed him relentlessly. In 1930, an international petition on his behalf was sent to the Finnish defense minister Juho Niukkanen, which included the signatures of sixty British MPs and notables such as Albert Einstein, Henri Barbusse and H. G. Wells. On 14 April 1931, the Lex Pekurinen, Finland's first alternative to military service, was passed. However, its provisions extended only as far as peacetime.

When the Winter War broke out in 1939, Pekurinen once again found himself imprisoned. At the onset of the Continuation War in autumn 1941, he was sent to the front, with orders to make sure he did wear the uniform, and bear and use a weapon. At the front he still refused to wear a uniform or bear arms. Following an order issued by captain Pentti Valkonen, he was executed without trial. The first two soldiers (sergeant Kivelä and private Kinnunen) ordered to execute him refused; only the third, corporal Asikainen, obeyed Valkonen's direct order.

After the war, an investigation of Pekurinen's death was launched but never completed. He remained effectively forgotten for over fifty years, until the publication in 1998 of the book Courage: The life and execution of Arndt Pekurinen by Erno Paasilinna. The city of Helsinki named a park Arndt Pekurisen puisto (Arndt Pekurinen Park) in East Pasila in his memory.

According to the book by Paasilinna, Pekurinen's motto was inspired by Jonathan Swift: "As people are not eaten, butchering them is of no use." ("Kun ihmisiä ei syödä, on niitä turha teurastaa.")

title: Arndt Pekurinen