This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Manual of Style/Text formatting page. |
|
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9Auto-archiving period: 183 days |
Manual of Style | ||||||||||
|
On most of the food and drink pages italics are used improperly (I have spent many hours of my days correcting errors of this kind), for example: many times on a page a food is put in italics and on the same page many times it's not; on one page a food is made italics and on others the same food is not made italics; it almost always happens that when one enters a wikilink of a food put in italics, one is confronted with a page without that food in italics. I myself struggle to continue reading foods and drinks pages, I don't want to imagine in the mind of a reader how much bloody confusion is created. I would propose to have a bot act by removing all italicised food and drink terms, or, even better, selecting every existing food, deciding whether to make it italic or not, and, again through the bot, changing everything at the same time, without (which is impossible) doing it without bot. I, however, have done my best, but I will announce that I will never again spend time on this problem, as I am in an endless loop. I wonder what's the point of italicising a food If there is zero uniformity. JackkBrown ( talk) 00:52, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
In this edit to One (pronoun), SMcCandlish replaced underlining with emboldening, citing MOS:UNDERLINE, which has this to say:
Underlining is used in typewriting and handwriting to represent italic type. Generally, do not underline text or it may be confused with links on a web page.
(My emphasis, natch.) This implies to me that there are times when underlining can be appropriate. Additionally, boldface is somewhat iffy. MOS:BOLD says of it:
Boldface (text like this) is common in Wikipedia articles, but is considered appropriate only for certain usages. [...] For semantical emphasis (to denote importance, seriousness, or urgency), you can also use the HTML element
<strong>...</strong>
, or the template{{ strong}}
. This is desirable because the words can stand out for text to speech and other software, important due to accessibility issues.
Unsurprisingly, underlining in wikitext with the HTML U tag results in <u>underlining</u> with the HTML U tag. But emboldening with multiple apostrophes results in <b>emboldening</b> with the HTML B tag. Both U and B are presentational rather than semantic (or "semantical"). So from the point of view of text-to-speech, multiple-apostrophe emboldening doesn't seem an improvement over regular underlining. And however unshouty the intention, boldface can be criticized for shoutiness.
How about either Template:Uline (permitting different kinds of single underline) or Template:Uuline (for a double underline)?
I'd go for Template:Uuline myself, but I'm open to persuasion. -- Hoary ( talk) 00:27, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
Just see
MOS:UNDERLINE. It is not a style Wikipedia uses, and this was a decision the project came to a consensus about something like 20 years ago. If you need to "call out" a text fragment like this in a visual way, use italics. If italics are already over-represented in that content for another purpose (foreign terms, titles of works, whatever), then use boldface. There is nothing new or special about this. Whether it should really be done with semantic emphasis (<em>
or {{
em}}
for the italic kind, or <strong>
or {{
strong}}
for the bold kind) is debatable, and I'm not sure I care at all. As long as it's not underlining. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
Additional opinions are needed at Talk:Daria#Tracy Grandstaff regarding whether it is appropriate to place Grandstaff's name in boldface while Tracy Grandstaff is a redirect to Daria. Thank you for providing additional opinions. DonIago ( talk) 05:54, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
In this edit at Adolf Hitler, I removed language markup that previously was coded thus:
The baptismal register did not show the name of his father, and Alois initially bore his mother's surname, {{lang|de|"Schicklgruber"|italic=no}}.
dropping the {{lang|de}}
template and retaining only the double quoted name. This seems self-evidently correct to me, because this occurs in running English text, and there's no reason for marking it up with a {{
lang}} template. Put another way, none of the criteria listed at
Template:Lang#Rationale apply, and in particular, the screen reader item does not apply, as we don't want to switch pronunciation to German in the middle of an English sentence just to pronounce his birth name. (If further argument were needed: plenty of native-born Germans have names of Russian (or Turkish) origin, so then what: we tag the name for German pronunciation? Or we tag it for Russian or Turkish, even though the person involved would pronounce it in the German fashion?)
The tricky part, is how to word this parsimoniously in the text, without using as many words as I just did. Perhaps this addition to § Foreign term would do:
− | When a name should not be italicized, language markup can still ensure proper pronunciation in screen readers, by using the <code class="tpl-para" style="word-break:break-word; ">|italic=unset</code> parameter: <code>{{[[Template:Lang|lang]]|de|italic=unset|Nürnberg}}</code>. | + | When a name should not be italicized, language markup can still ensure proper pronunciation in screen readers, by using the <code class="tpl-para" style="word-break:break-word; ">|italic=unset</code> parameter: <code>{{[[Template:Lang|lang]]|de|italic=unset|Nürnberg}}</code>. However, language markup should not be used for the name of an individual, unless it is part of a longer expression in the language. |
Or maybe:
Either of these would have covered the situation I changed wrt "Schicklgruber", and I would have liked to be able to link a MOS section in the edit summary to substantiate my edit. Mathglot ( talk) 01:47, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
Outside Wikipedia, I'm used to the convention of brief expressions that would normally be italicized in running text (such as a foreign term) being unitalicized to maintain the font style contrast with surrounding text when the brief expression is embedded in a longer section of text which is italicized for other reasons. I wonder if we do this? An example might be (1) a major work title inside a hatnote. (Also, out of curiosity: does anyone know if there's a name for that type of unitalicization?)
Another type of "double" is when two different italicizing criteria listed at MOS:ITALICS both apply to a single expression, for example, both MOS:WAW and MOS:FOREIGNITALIC at the same time. For a RW example, see sentence two at Affiche Rouge (2):
Should 'Affiche Rouge' be italicized? The term Affiche Rouge is being treated as a term, therefore MOS:WAW applies and it should be; MOS:FOREIGNITALIC also applies, so does that negate the original italicization criterion, or just confirm it? Another might be (3) a {{ Main}} or {{ Further}} link (normally italicized) linking an article about a book/major work whose title is normally italicized. Would it matter, if (4) the {{ Further}} template had three links, say, and only one of them was a major work (or fulfilled any other italicization criterion) so that two "regular" links would be italicized, but the one book article link would not?
I think I tend towards: 1=no italics, 2=yes, 3=yes/either, 4=no. Mathglot ( talk) 01:27, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
Hi, I've been told that I shouldn't bold titles however it's not stated in WP:MOS as far as I can see. On List of kingdoms in Africa throughout history, I would like to bold the headings referring to regions (like North Africa, East Africa) to make their superiority to the time periods (Ancient, Post-classical) clearer, particularly in the 'Contents' list.
Also I would like to bold 'List of kingdoms' to denote its importance relative to 'Comparison' and 'History periods', which just offer supplementary information.
Thank you in advance for any help Alexanderkowal ( talk) 20:47, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
I posted a note referring to MOS:FONTFAMILY at Template talk:Adjacent stations. I would welcome any feedback there. I don't see exceptions to MOS:FONTFAMILY in our guidelines, but I've been around long enough to know that there are sometimes practices that contradict guidelines. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 15:45, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Manual of Style/Text formatting page. |
|
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9Auto-archiving period: 183 days |
Manual of Style | ||||||||||
|
On most of the food and drink pages italics are used improperly (I have spent many hours of my days correcting errors of this kind), for example: many times on a page a food is put in italics and on the same page many times it's not; on one page a food is made italics and on others the same food is not made italics; it almost always happens that when one enters a wikilink of a food put in italics, one is confronted with a page without that food in italics. I myself struggle to continue reading foods and drinks pages, I don't want to imagine in the mind of a reader how much bloody confusion is created. I would propose to have a bot act by removing all italicised food and drink terms, or, even better, selecting every existing food, deciding whether to make it italic or not, and, again through the bot, changing everything at the same time, without (which is impossible) doing it without bot. I, however, have done my best, but I will announce that I will never again spend time on this problem, as I am in an endless loop. I wonder what's the point of italicising a food If there is zero uniformity. JackkBrown ( talk) 00:52, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
In this edit to One (pronoun), SMcCandlish replaced underlining with emboldening, citing MOS:UNDERLINE, which has this to say:
Underlining is used in typewriting and handwriting to represent italic type. Generally, do not underline text or it may be confused with links on a web page.
(My emphasis, natch.) This implies to me that there are times when underlining can be appropriate. Additionally, boldface is somewhat iffy. MOS:BOLD says of it:
Boldface (text like this) is common in Wikipedia articles, but is considered appropriate only for certain usages. [...] For semantical emphasis (to denote importance, seriousness, or urgency), you can also use the HTML element
<strong>...</strong>
, or the template{{ strong}}
. This is desirable because the words can stand out for text to speech and other software, important due to accessibility issues.
Unsurprisingly, underlining in wikitext with the HTML U tag results in <u>underlining</u> with the HTML U tag. But emboldening with multiple apostrophes results in <b>emboldening</b> with the HTML B tag. Both U and B are presentational rather than semantic (or "semantical"). So from the point of view of text-to-speech, multiple-apostrophe emboldening doesn't seem an improvement over regular underlining. And however unshouty the intention, boldface can be criticized for shoutiness.
How about either Template:Uline (permitting different kinds of single underline) or Template:Uuline (for a double underline)?
I'd go for Template:Uuline myself, but I'm open to persuasion. -- Hoary ( talk) 00:27, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
Just see
MOS:UNDERLINE. It is not a style Wikipedia uses, and this was a decision the project came to a consensus about something like 20 years ago. If you need to "call out" a text fragment like this in a visual way, use italics. If italics are already over-represented in that content for another purpose (foreign terms, titles of works, whatever), then use boldface. There is nothing new or special about this. Whether it should really be done with semantic emphasis (<em>
or {{
em}}
for the italic kind, or <strong>
or {{
strong}}
for the bold kind) is debatable, and I'm not sure I care at all. As long as it's not underlining. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
Additional opinions are needed at Talk:Daria#Tracy Grandstaff regarding whether it is appropriate to place Grandstaff's name in boldface while Tracy Grandstaff is a redirect to Daria. Thank you for providing additional opinions. DonIago ( talk) 05:54, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
In this edit at Adolf Hitler, I removed language markup that previously was coded thus:
The baptismal register did not show the name of his father, and Alois initially bore his mother's surname, {{lang|de|"Schicklgruber"|italic=no}}.
dropping the {{lang|de}}
template and retaining only the double quoted name. This seems self-evidently correct to me, because this occurs in running English text, and there's no reason for marking it up with a {{
lang}} template. Put another way, none of the criteria listed at
Template:Lang#Rationale apply, and in particular, the screen reader item does not apply, as we don't want to switch pronunciation to German in the middle of an English sentence just to pronounce his birth name. (If further argument were needed: plenty of native-born Germans have names of Russian (or Turkish) origin, so then what: we tag the name for German pronunciation? Or we tag it for Russian or Turkish, even though the person involved would pronounce it in the German fashion?)
The tricky part, is how to word this parsimoniously in the text, without using as many words as I just did. Perhaps this addition to § Foreign term would do:
− | When a name should not be italicized, language markup can still ensure proper pronunciation in screen readers, by using the <code class="tpl-para" style="word-break:break-word; ">|italic=unset</code> parameter: <code>{{[[Template:Lang|lang]]|de|italic=unset|Nürnberg}}</code>. | + | When a name should not be italicized, language markup can still ensure proper pronunciation in screen readers, by using the <code class="tpl-para" style="word-break:break-word; ">|italic=unset</code> parameter: <code>{{[[Template:Lang|lang]]|de|italic=unset|Nürnberg}}</code>. However, language markup should not be used for the name of an individual, unless it is part of a longer expression in the language. |
Or maybe:
Either of these would have covered the situation I changed wrt "Schicklgruber", and I would have liked to be able to link a MOS section in the edit summary to substantiate my edit. Mathglot ( talk) 01:47, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
Outside Wikipedia, I'm used to the convention of brief expressions that would normally be italicized in running text (such as a foreign term) being unitalicized to maintain the font style contrast with surrounding text when the brief expression is embedded in a longer section of text which is italicized for other reasons. I wonder if we do this? An example might be (1) a major work title inside a hatnote. (Also, out of curiosity: does anyone know if there's a name for that type of unitalicization?)
Another type of "double" is when two different italicizing criteria listed at MOS:ITALICS both apply to a single expression, for example, both MOS:WAW and MOS:FOREIGNITALIC at the same time. For a RW example, see sentence two at Affiche Rouge (2):
Should 'Affiche Rouge' be italicized? The term Affiche Rouge is being treated as a term, therefore MOS:WAW applies and it should be; MOS:FOREIGNITALIC also applies, so does that negate the original italicization criterion, or just confirm it? Another might be (3) a {{ Main}} or {{ Further}} link (normally italicized) linking an article about a book/major work whose title is normally italicized. Would it matter, if (4) the {{ Further}} template had three links, say, and only one of them was a major work (or fulfilled any other italicization criterion) so that two "regular" links would be italicized, but the one book article link would not?
I think I tend towards: 1=no italics, 2=yes, 3=yes/either, 4=no. Mathglot ( talk) 01:27, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
Hi, I've been told that I shouldn't bold titles however it's not stated in WP:MOS as far as I can see. On List of kingdoms in Africa throughout history, I would like to bold the headings referring to regions (like North Africa, East Africa) to make their superiority to the time periods (Ancient, Post-classical) clearer, particularly in the 'Contents' list.
Also I would like to bold 'List of kingdoms' to denote its importance relative to 'Comparison' and 'History periods', which just offer supplementary information.
Thank you in advance for any help Alexanderkowal ( talk) 20:47, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
I posted a note referring to MOS:FONTFAMILY at Template talk:Adjacent stations. I would welcome any feedback there. I don't see exceptions to MOS:FONTFAMILY in our guidelines, but I've been around long enough to know that there are sometimes practices that contradict guidelines. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 15:45, 11 July 2024 (UTC)