@Grauw Addressing the more technical bits from your post:
And if that kind of update ever happens, *then* we can correct the pages. There’s no need to fight a battle over it now.
Yes, like who's looking forward to edit 2000 (rounded that one up perhaps 
) pages (again)?
Better to do things the right way now, then... (you get the drift).
Working within the limits of the MRC wiki, they have made the choice to favour nice presentation over very unimportant details like semantic correctness.
Some limits only seem to be there. If you're meaning the user is unable to adjust the stylesheet: an admin can. Simply come with a well-grounded request for change. And I believe users can be given authorization to edit it themselves (not completely sure about that one though, but *should* be possible.. )
Very unimportant details? Why? It's literally the framework for your content.
Quite a controversial standpoint you're taking here..
There is nothing wrong with doing things for stylistic reasons, because in the end things need to be read by a human, not a computer.
Well, IMO there *is* something wrong with it if the wrong means are applied.
And come on, of course content (pages) need to be read by a computer as well. Most prominent example: search bots.
Another: accessibility tools. Being able to generate a correct outline from the document is not that invaluable I believe.
If we care the slightest about end-user accessibility, we should care about the headings.
as we do not control the markup generator nor the stylesheet, the end must be reached by other means
[...]
their ways on details that I’m sure they’ve put thought into and made a well-informed choice on.
So that's where you're wrong I believe. We do control it, though an admin should be addressed.
In that regard I doubt this possibility has been (even) considered. Yes, the default boundaries are such there's no way to control the stylesheet, but... (see above).
Now at this very moment it looks like all pages are being adjusted with this new heading level structure. To me this simply looks like a mistake, and a lot of effort that should have gone into revamping the stylesheet.
I've checked some old(er) pages (2012 ... 2016), what I see there is an H2 base level heading (seems they (deliberately?) decided upon that) Now it seems that's all becoming H1, based upon a decision by 1 (could be wrong here) individual it seems. Has this restructuring put forward for debate before?
Note that H2 as base still gives you 5 headings to work with. Should be plenty. (But that was not the issue at hand I believe.)
p.s. In case I was a bit harsh, note I also appreciate your passion and desire to improve things.
Well, looks my ways (at times) provoke reaction. Good thing to get feedback. Yes, sometimes I can be bit too critical, kinda blunt/rash & headstrong (myself) perhaps. In this case I could have taken a bit more reserved stance.
Anyway, the end doesn't justify the means Thanks for the feedback, will probably come back on some other bits later.
So then, how about you get the stylesheets fixed first?
It does not make sense to me to first make the content look worse than it does now, and then hope someone will address it on the stylesheet side. Doing it the other way around makes more sense to me, and will also eliminate all of the disagreement on this point (!).
While you’re at it, get the style for <code> fixed as well, because that style attribute they have on the wiki now looks horrible 
.
@Grauw I started this discussion when I noticed these recent heading changes. I was not complaining at first.
If I'm allowed editing rights, I'm prepared to have a look at it, and yes, some things need to be fixed anyway 
I also added a quote template the other day that still needs some tweaking/pimping.
[edit] OTOH - I believe so many pages are adjusted by now, it looks like, as far as the headings are concerned, the "let's fix the stylesheet" boat has sailed.
