@ppelberg in our conversation about this task, you shared the Village Pump as an example of this problem, however I am confused as this page is not a Talk Page (although it sort of behaves like one). Can you explain and/or provide me with some additional examples?

In T306364#7861698, @iamjessklein wrote:

@ppelberg in our conversation about this task, you shared the Village Pump as an example of this problem, however I am confused as this page is not a Talk Page (although it sort of behaves like one). Can you explain and/or provide me with some additional examples?

While it is accurate to think Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Survey_(Portal_links) does not exist in the Talk namespace, the == Proposal to change portal links on the Main Page == discussion is an example of a discussion that contains level 3 section headings (see the ===Proposal=== and ===Survey (Portal links)=== sections).

Here is another example of a discussion that contains sub-headings that appears within the talk namespace: Wikipedia_talk:Talk_pages_project#Reply_Tool_as_Opt-Out_and_Upcoming_Work.

Thanks @ppelberg - I've updated the ticket description.

It seems like there are two general options:

1. Dropdowns with the subsections in the table of contents

or.

2. No subsections in the table of contents

At this stage, option 1 seems like the least obtrusive of the two options but would love to hear thoughts or feedback.

There are also discussion pages that contain <h1>s, for example hu:Wikipédia:Bürokraták üzenőfala. Here the old TOC presents <h1>s like how it presents <h2>s on other pages and <h2>s like <h3>s. However, the topics are still the <h2>s, so the activity metadata should be displayed there, not at the TOC’s top level (the <h1>s). (Actually the reason to use <h1>s is exactly that topics created with the (legacy, full-page) New topic affordance should be subsections of these general sections, even though this violates HTML semantic markup rules by having multiple <h1>s on the page.)

By the way, <h5>s and <h6>s can also come up on talk pages, but they’re pretty rare and don’t require any special handling compared to <h3>s and <h4>s anyway, so it’s just for the sake of completeness.

In T306364#7869827, @Tacsipacsi wrote:

There are also discussion pages that contain <h1>s, for example hu:Wikipédia:Bürokraták üzenőfala...

This is a great case for us to be aware of...thank you for sharing it, @Tacsipacsi.

We need to define how these will be treated with the remainder of the Usability improvements

Regarding the broader question (above), this week the Editing Team decided that we will NOT implement any kind of special handling to exclude H3s, H4s, and any other section headings, from the version of the new ToC we will show on discussion pages (T303634).

With the above said, the Editing Team did come to wonder whether the inclusion of H3s and H4s within the new, DiscussionTools-enhanced version of the ToC warrants us making adjustments to how metadata is presented within it.

We will consider this question as part of T303634. See #3 in T303634 ===Open questions section.

Thanks for the update @ppelberg - should this ticket be marked as Resolved then?

I don’t see any decision on <h1>s. While that issue could be split off into a separate task so that this one is really only about what’s in the title, I think it naturally fits here.

In T306364#7878135, @Tacsipacsi wrote:

I don’t see any decision on <h1>s. While that issue could be split off into a separate task so that this one is really only about what’s in the title, I think it naturally fits here.

@Tacsipacsi: would it be accurate for us to think the "decision on <h1>s" you are referring to above is whether discussion pages that contain = H1 ='s ought to have said = H1 ='s included within the new table of contents?

If so, I think T306364#7874614 addresses this question in so far as in it I indicated the Editing Team is NOT planning to implement any kind of special handling that would exclude section headings, regardless of their "heading level" from appearing within the new ToC that will appear on discussion pages.

No, I was referring to not whether, but how, the =H1=s should be included. And actually it’s even more complicated, as ===H3===s (and lower-level headings) not preceded by higher-level ones appear as top-level entries in the table of contents. For example,

=== Subheading ===
Lorem ipsum.

== Topic title ==
Dolor sit amet.

=== Subheading 2 ===
Consectetur adipiscing elit.

= Superheading =
Sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt.

== Topic title 2 ==
Ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.

=== Subheading 3 ===
Ut enim ad minim veniam.

appears as:

The topic titles are the ==H2==s as agreed on. However, looking at the table of contents, ==H2==s are entries “2” and “3.1”. Entries “1” and “3” have the same depth as “2”, and “2.1” has the same depth as “3.1”, but they aren’t topic titles. The design needs to accommodate to this. (Incorrectly wrapped =H1=s are probably quite rare, but in my experience, talk pages starting with lower-level headings (e.g. ===H3===s) are surprisingly common “in the wild”.)

In T306364#7904738, @Tacsipacsi wrote:

No, I was referring to not whether, but how, the =H1=s should be included. And actually it’s even more complicated, as ===H3===s (and lower-level headings) not preceded by higher-level ones appear as top-level entries in the table of contents.

The additional description and visuals you shared above is what I needed to understand what you were expressing...thank you, @Tacsipacsi.

I think the issue you are raising/question you are posing [i] is better suited for the Web Team considering you are asking about the new ToC's underlying behavior which we are not currently planning for DiscussionTools to affect. Rather, we are planning for DiscussionTools to add information to the version of the ToC the Web Team will be providing.

As such, I've filed T307824 for the Web Team to address this issue. [i] Can you please populate T307824 with the information the Web Team will need to engage with it? I've started the ticket by copying over the context you shared in T306364#7904738.

i. How will the new ToC will behave on pages that contain lower level section headings (read: ==H3==, ==== H4 ====, etc.) that are NOT preceded by higher order ones (e.g. ==H2==) ?

In T306364#7911025, @ppelberg wrote:

I think the issue you are raising/question you are posing [i] is better suited for the Web Team considering you are asking about the new ToC's underlying behavior which we are not currently planning for DiscussionTools to affect. Rather, we are planning for DiscussionTools to add information to the version of the ToC the Web Team will be providing.

It depends on what information you expect the Web Team to provide. On its own (i.e. in non-talk namespaces), I don’t think the table of contents’ appearance needs to be changed from how it currently looks like, only the DiscussionTools enhancements should be aware of it. Of course if you expect Vector to provide information on which heading level a given heading is (e.g. ==H2== or ===H3===), and not on how deep it is (e.g. top-level section or subsection), then Vector may also need changes.

I'm sorry for the lag here, @Tacsipacsi.

...only the DiscussionTools enhancements should be aware of it.

Do you recall what "it" refers to in the bit I'm quoting above from what you wrote in T306364#7911275?

I want to make sure all open questions are answered/accounted for before resolving this ticket.