Should 'Advance Directive' be a second level heading?

Question

I have seen suggestions such as === Digital Afterlife ===, which I personally am not so keen on, as a third level heading but there is absolutely no way this should be below the level of Biography or Research Notes or Sources. It is definitely a second level heading and since the words are given in the help on Advance Directives it seems unreasonable to get an error: Wrong level heading == Advance Directive ==

In my opinion it probably belongs below Acknowledgements, if it must, or perhaps as I prefer immediately above sources. Either way please tweak the database so a second level heading of == Advance Directive == does not cause a database error.

Edit to add tags. And....

I should like to propose that == Advance Directive == be officially made an acceptable level 2 heading.

Comments

Jim, I disagree that it is 'endorsed' by the example. If it was endorsed, it would be in the Help pages.  I know that Kay checked with Chris and Eowyn to make sure that the Help was correct and only those 4 headers should be 2 level.  If the Help page is changed, then Kay would change her code, I am sure, but she has been very careful about following and reading every Help page that affected the Style issues she was addressing.

Hopefully, Someone from the Team will comment or give an answer to this post now that some tags have been added.

---

A link to a profile from an official Help page, given as an example for people to follow, is clearly an endorsement.

Here's a statement that more creative freedom is available on private and free-space profiles. Judging by the way many members set up their own profiles, the same is widely considered to apply there as well.

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Help:HTML_and_Inline_CSS#More_Creative_Freedom_on_Private_and_Free-Space_Profiles

---

Hi guys! There should be no style disagreements here because it's only relevant on a person's own profile. I don't even think we need to set a style rule, but if people want one recommendation or another, we can go with the one the example profile set. Maybe Kay can exclude this particular item from Bio Check?

---

@Eowyn, that would be good. The 'error' annoys me!

---

Should the Style Guide and Biographies Help Pages be changed? Kay follows the Help Pages, as we are supposed to do.

---

Eowyn,
Personally, I like to see specific guidance on general topics like header levels. It's easier to give direction that way. If the Help pages can simply say that "all bets are off" on a member's personal page, that makes life easier. I'd be happiest if there was a specific guide about header levels, since this isn't the first time the subject has come up.

---

Just let me know what to do. I won't be making any changes until mid August.

---

The help page https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Help:Advance_Directive now more clearly shows the example with a level two headline.

---

Excellent! Thanks Chris!

---

Are other help pages going to be changed? Biographies Proper Order states 

Any other elements or subsections should go below one of the recommended sections described above

Answer 1

Bio Check is included in Wikitree Browser Extension.  It follows the approved Style Guidelines, which has the only two level headings of Biography, Research Notes, Sources and Acknowledgements.  The Help Page for Advanced Directive, linked above, does not indicate that it should be a second level, only the Example does, but I do not think that means that it should be a second level. 

Help page for Biographies does not have the Directive included, but it also shows only the 4 two level headings. Maybe that page should have the Advanced Directive included in the Optional Additional subsections part of that page. 

If you want it to be included as a 2 level heading, it sounds like you should be proposing a change to multiple pages.  

Comments

In that case, yes it should be changed on multiple pages. This is not a level three heading as it is not a part of the Biography.

---

You probably need to 'propose' a change, and / or add some additional tags to this question, such as Style, biography.

Answer 2

Answering so that I can find this again in mid August when I have internet connectivity sufficient for development.

I will check the help pages then, but I would assume that it should be after Sources and before Acknowledgments.

on the other hand would it make sense to never BioCheck an active member's profile?

And then to complain about an Advance Directive for a profile that is not an active member?

Comments

I think the idea in your third paragraph would save a lot of heartache all round, Kay :-) The fourth paragraph makes good sense too.

---

@Kay, I would go along with this idea as well.