This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 9 |
I note the discussion above about using boldface for alternate names, but surely we should be bolding for redirects as set out by Wikipedia:Redirect#What_needs_to_be_done_on_pages_that_are_targets_of_redirects.3F? Another editor has been removing the boldface from redirects citing MOS:BOLD could this be clarified in the MOS?— Rod talk 21:08, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
The Wrestling Project is trying to be more consistent in our article writing, and we've come across an issue that we need some outside opinions on. Wrestlers often give their moves nicknames, and we are trying to decide whether they should be written it italics, put in quotations, or left in plain text. Should the move be given emphasis because it is a special move of a particular wrestler? Does anyone know of a relevant precedent in another sport? Here is an example of how it could be written:
Any opinions would be appreciated. Thanks. Nikki♥ 311 21:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Does the MOS have any statements regarding the use of colored text in articles? I assume it is frowned upon as unnecessary emphasis, but was looking for something "official". I didn't see anything on this page--if there is something in the MOS already, it should probably be repeated or linked here. -- LJ ( talk) 21:28, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
I am requesting comments on the interpretation of this guideline on bolding the family name in the lede of an article about a group of animals, at Talk Elephant#Bolding of Elephantidae in lede. -- Donald Albury 09:30, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Under Foreign terms, a sub-section of Italic face, is the following sentence.
For better accessibility, Latin language quotations should never be set in all-capitals or small capitals, even when such use might seem anachronistic.
Firstly, I would normally read this as stating the opposite of what was intended (i.e. I would understand "such use" as referring to the use of all-capitals).
Secondly, does this belong under "Italic face"?
--
Boson (
talk)
23:06, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
"If the article topic does not have a commonly accepted name, but is merely descriptive (e.g., history of the United States), the title does not need to appear in the first sentence, and is not bolded if it does."
Roman Britain is in bold. Unsurprisingly given the above, History of the United States isn't but History of Puerto Rico, an FA, is. A user has recently removed the bold from Scotland during the Roman Empire (a GA), which looks most odd to me. What does "descriptive" mean exactly? "Roman Britain" is a well-known phrase - but "Roman Scotland" (assuming there were such an article) wouldn't be. Why the distinction?
I can quite understand that if the title of the article e.g. the example of Electrical characteristics of dynamic loudspeakers in WP:LEAD isn't used it should not be bolded, but what is the purpose of creating this rather vague distinction, that is apparently widely ignored? Ben Mac Dui 11:46, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't understand the above. The sentences concerned have generally been through some kind of peer review. Presumably every single list on Wikipedia is "descriptive". This guideline needs to be changed urgently. I suggest removing:
and replacing it with:
A dynamic loudspeaker driver's chief electrical characteristic is its electrical impedance versus frequency.
Ben Mac Dui 07:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Support proposed change. Article topic should always be bolded in the opening sentence unless it is extremely awkward. History of the United States should be bolded. List names are awkward. Reywas92 Talk 21:02, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Oppose overly broad action. This seems to be a case of people favoring rules over content. (See WP:IAR.) Have any of you looked at History of the United States? You'll note that the phrase "History of the United States" does not appear in the lead section, which really makes me wonder how so many people think it needs to be bold. I'm sure it would be possible to rewrite the lead section to shoehorn the phrase in to the lead section, but that would be totally missing the point. I see no need for every article to restate its page name in bold print. I think the rule should be something along the lines of, “If the lead section evolves naturally to contain the article title, the first occurrence should be in bold.″ If it there, bold it; if not, not. Simple, easy. If the lead section is awkward because it states the article title, then the lead section should be rewritten. Remove the statement and improve the wording rather than trying to decide if it should be bold or not. — DragonHawk ( talk| hist) 05:23, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Starting an article with something like, "This is a list of United States Senators who served in the 110th United States Congress arranged by seniority" is just silly. The same sentence without the intermittent bold is better, but it still seems like it is unnecessarily repeating the title. There is no reason why a list called "List of United States Senators in the 110th Congress by seniority" shouldn't start, "The 102 United States Senators who served during the 110th United States Congress, are listed here by seniority. Seniority is determined..." It flows better, allows for additional information, and allows for linking. Since the bold iteration of the title is not supposed to contain links (for good reason), it is often necessary to repeat terms that should be linked just so they can be. At the very least, the guideline should state no preference for bolding such text. Preferably, bolding descriptive titles, especially long ones, would be discouraged. - Rrius ( talk) 06:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Oppose, for the time being, until the text address the issue of links within article titles. Consistency is needed, and perhaps always bolding is the way to go, but titles like History of France (or whatever) look terrible.-- Cúchullain t/ c 12:20, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
I noticed that the descriptive text here at MOS:BOLD seemed to be drifting from what was stated over at MOS:BOLDTITLE. Rather than try to keep two different MOS pages in sync, I figured we were better off referring readers to one location. The style guidance will thus be in a single location. That's easier for readers to follow, and easier for editors to maintain. It also means discussion can happen on a single talk page, and interested parties don't have to watch for discussions on two separate pages.
I'll see about continuing the discussion over at Wikipedia talk:Lead section.
Cheers! — DragonHawk ( talk| hist) 22:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I would like to see a guideline on how cross-references should be formatted. It isn't obvious.
or:
or (as in most print reference works):
remembering that hyperlinks aren't formatting and don't show up on paper.
I'm trying to start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#More italics clarification and inline .22see.22 Please contribute there if you can. -- Cedders tk 16:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
As of today, the hatnotes for the article look roughly like this:
The formatting of the notes sets a bad example because it doesn't follow what the article recommends. I understand that using examples helps to define text formatting, but starting off with precisely the sort of thing we are attempting to avoid doesn't seem wise. I'd leave the examples for the body of the article and use a more standard hatnote:
That follows the practice of reversing the use of italics to indicate emphasis. Personally, I think more emphasis on when and how would be a good thing. The article prohibits using using bold for emphasis in the article text, but hatnotes aren't really part of the article text proper, and even if so, this may be a good time to ignore the rules (in moderation):
I'd also combine the two sentences into a paragraph:
Lastly, what are the rules/conventions for having such hatnotes in the first place? Most of the other MoS subpages do not have similar notes. The
WP:TM
MOS:ICONS page uses a {{
nutshell}} to summarize the article, but that may not fit here:
This page in a nutshell: This page provides guidance on when to format text in articles. For instructions on how to do that, see Wikipedia:How to edit a page#Character formatting. |
Other similar boxes use bold text for emphasis, so this might be better:
This page in a nutshell: This page provides guidance on when to format text in articles. For instructions on how to do that, see Wikipedia:How to edit a page#Character formatting. |
Comments? — John Cardinal ( talk) 17:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
I am in a dispute with Ckatz about It Takes a Thief (1968 TV series). See the edit summaries on its history page, the diff pages thereto, and the talk page. Specifically, the main opening titles there contain a bit of spoken dialogue which contain deliberate and important emphasis. Over the course of the series' run, there were three different versions, each with a different actor (in character) saying something different. I had indicated these emphases with boldface, and eventually Ckatz came along and reverted all back to plain text except for the first instance, which he changed to italics, claiming guidelines supported him (why he thought that the first would satisfy all is beyond me). After I reverted, saying italics don't emphasize and certainly the first alone was not enough for the others, he reverted again, this time linking in this guideline page. I pointed out to him, accurately, that nothing here deals with a situation such as the one at hand. When he again reverted, he ignored that, saying that if I disagreed with the guideline I should do so there (meaning here, of course). Well, I told him again that I was not disgreeing with the regs in that case but pointing out the fact that they don't cover that situation, which was certainly not my oversight, and that I would bring it up there (here). Here I am. Let me further add that italics simply fail to add emphasis, especially within a lengthy passage (compare that last to the boldfaced words previous to gauge the differences in effect yourselves). I respectfully request both an addition to cover one-time-spoken statements not subject to being read in different ways by different people on different occasions that contain intentional emphasis, and also a reconsideration of the prohibition on boldface for emphasis at all. Thank you. -- Tbrittreid ( talk) 21:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Comment The choice of words to highlight, if any at all, is irrelevant to this aspect of the discussion. (Personally, I don't care about the word choice; I ended up here because Tbrittreid reverted an IP who disagreed with his use of boldface.) Simply put, the Manual of Style appears quite clear on this matter:
Tbrittreid insists that those sections don't apply in this case, and that - since he feels there is no direct mention of how to format this particular case - he is free to use boldface. I've asked for some proof - any proof - that boldface is warranted under the Manual of Style, but he refuses to provide it. Frankly, this is a silly thing to argue about, as the Manual of Style seems to address it already. However, if there is even the slightest chance that the MoS is not crystal-clear on the correct option, an opinion from the regulars here would be welcomed and beneficial. Thanks in advance. -- Ckatz chat spy 22:48, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Italics is preferred by style guides for emphasis, and boldface is deprecated. That is simple fact that can be verified by turning to a style guide, which you apparently cannot or will not do. It does not matter whether the material to be emphasized is within quoted material or not, which appears to be a distinction you are making. If it is not, then you need to be clearer. - Rrius ( talk) 00:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Since you are neither Ckatz nor Rrius, I won't enforce my warning against your post. As I said previously in no uncertain terms, outside style guides and any unilateral or arbitrary assertion are irrelevant because emphasis is an effect to be created; it either exists or it does not, and italics do not actually, physically create emphasis in Wikipedia text, as can be seen from examining this thread and the article talk page thread linked into my initial post that launched this thread. Both contain various words here and there that are italicized or boldfaced for emphasis, and it is patently obvious which are and are not emphasized, corroborated by the fact that neither of the other two posters here have so much as acknowledged this assertion. I freely concede that italics do work that way elsewhere on the internet, such as IMDb discussion boards (if there are at least two characters to emphasize, although sometimes that's not long enough), but the effect does not happen here. -- Tbrittreid ( talk) 23:34, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Finally, you said emphasis was to "distract the reader from the regular flow of the reading", which is stopping you in your tracks, not merely highlighting, which is the actual point of emphasis. Bold text, such as you have annoyingly used in your contributions, is distracting and annoying and disrupts the reader in such a way as to make him or her stop reading and start again. That is not the point emphasis, but is just bad writing. Just so you know, if your next contribution doesn't actually make some attempt to defend your position, as opposed to attacking me or issuing unexplained ultimatums, I'm just going to assume you are a troll and ignore you. My assumption, however, is that you are merely a poor writer, as evidenced by your barely comprehensible contribution of 21:26 UTC on 20 November. If your request is that I provide citations to style guides, then say so clearly, preferably with the words "please provide citations to style guides". I think that might be what you are asking for, but you aren't doing a great job of doing it. Your abrasive style has made the attempt to parse your contributions less than appealing, so if that is not what you are looking for, please forgive me. - Rrius ( talk) 02:01, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Is there a MOS guideline for text size? I can't find anything that says 110% font size (for example) is discouraged for normal prose text, lists, and table contents (as a form of emphasis), but I think it ought to be. — Andrwsc ( talk · contribs) 18:58, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
font-size
style (at 88%). —
Andrwsc (
talk ·
contribs)
01:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)Can strike text be used in the article? I don't see a section about that here.— Chris! c/ t 03:10, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Because Italic text is generated on Wikipedia using double apostrophes, using an apostrophe after an italicised word often creates a mess. Here's an example from Philip Campbell (scientist): 'He takes direct editorial responsibility for the content of Natures editorials, writing some of them. Philip Campbell is Natures seventh Editor-in-Chief since the journal was launched in 1869.' The problem arises because the title of the journal Nature is italicised, but also used as a possessive. Is there any way of avoiding this problem? Or should the sentence simply be rephrased? Robofish ( talk) 02:14, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
… content of ''Nature''<!-- -->'s editorials …
… content of <i>Nature</i>'s editorials …
<nowiki>
tags. That is:
content of ''Nature''{{'}}s editorials
… of ''Nature''\'s editorials…
would make sense to me. Would people watching this conversation be opposed to a suggestion/patch for such a thing? It might (validly) be called yet another bit of idiosyncratic syntax for MediaWiki. —
DragonHawk (
talk|
hist)
21:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)I don't know that there is anything that could really be done to "fix" it (without adding new syntax). Since the single-quote-mark is not directional, there is no way for the parser to really "know" what someone means. (Maybe you wanted to bold the middle of a long italic phase.) One could look for shortest match first, or try and prefer words (no spaces), etc., but it's always going to be wrong for some usage case. Right? — DragonHawk ( talk| hist) 02:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello, we at WikiProject Films are trying to determine consensus about whether or not bold formatting is appropriate in film articles (beyond the title, of course). MOS:BOLD makes clear the "few special uses" of the formatting, but traditionally, articles under WikiProject Films use the formatting to highlight the names of the actors and their roles in the "Cast" sections. Is it a tradition that needs to be bucked or not? Find discussion here and please share your thoughts! — Erik ( talk • contrib) 12:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Quick question regarding the use of boldface in quotations. I'm quoting a bit of text where the source itself uses boldface to emphasize certain phrases. Should I retain the boldface in the quotation? The text in question can be seen at Big Black#1984: Touring and label signing, in the quotebox on the right. Looking at BOLD, I can't tell whether I should preserve the bolding used in the original source or not. Thanks. -- IllaZilla ( talk) 21:00, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
There is currently an ongoing discussion about the future of this and others MoS naming style. Please consider the issues raised in the discussion and vote if you wish GnevinAWB ( talk) 20:58, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Current use seems to be mixed. WP:ITALICS doesn't specifically mention songs, only cantatas and motets / operas, operettas, oratorios are mentioned. Should they be in in italics? I believe they should, considering songs are works of art. If not, the list should preferably reflect that. jonkerz ♠ 18:19, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
The section Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(text_formatting)#Other_uses lists cases where bold is used and then goes on to say it is usually applied automatically, I reckon we could summarise this into:
Note that this includes one of the points in 'contraindications'. The emphasis part is covered in more detail in 'italics'. That leaves us with other languages, which if we drop all the 'when not to' and stick to 'when to' we could omit this section too. Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 11:36, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
I understand that names of works are often put in italics. I notice that this guideline says short works (such as short poems) should instead have their title in quotes. What is the reason for this? Is it a rule we should change? It seems a bit odd to me. I notice that it is applied inconsistently. For example, the featured article on To Autumn puts the name in quotes but has the names of the poems Lamia and The Eve of Saint Agnes in italics. This might make sense if Lamina and The Eve of Saint Agnes are longer works... but their names are given in quotes within their own articles. Yaris678 ( talk) 23:09, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Back in the day, it was acceptable to use boldface as an accessible alternative to colouring a table cell – or at least no-one complained on MoS grounds when this list and others similar went through FLC – and it's a rather neater alternative for the sighted majority than scattering random symbols over the table. MOS:BOLD#Contraindications says we should use italics, not boldface, for emphasis in article text. Could someone clarify whether this contraindication definitely also applies to table cells, which I don't really think of as article text? thanks, Struway2 ( talk) 09:56, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm getting conflicting views as to whether the title of a reference that would normally be italicized in an article should be italicized. For example, with regards to video game Super Mario Bros. Deluxe:
Harris, Craig (1999-07-21). "IGN: Super Mario Bros. Deluxe Review". IGN. Retrieved 2008-04-23.
vs.
Harris, Craig (1999-07-21). "IGN: Super Mario Bros. Deluxe Review". IGN. Retrieved 2008-04-23.
What is the convention on this? I'm currently being told two separate things on this. – MuZemike 20:06, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
At present there is an objection at
WT:FLC to having table captions in bold face (the browser Wikimedia cross-project default) because they are not listed as exceptions to
WP:MOSBOLD. It would seem to me that virtually every table caption on Wikipedia uses boldface, so if this guideline is meant to document consensus practice, then table captions should be listed as one of the exceptions. I'm loathe to alter the guideline without discussion, so does anyone have any comments? --
RexxS (
talk)
17:07, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
In Even (band) I've italicized the band name in the article text to distinguish it from the common English word "even", rather than reformulate every sentence so it is distinguishable by its capitalization alone. Opinions? Better ideas? -- Lexein ( talk) 17:02, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi
I am finding that several projects are italicising titles (in articles and in article titles)- is there anywhere I can go to see some guidelines on how this should be done? (A list of MoS'/guidelines for each project etc.)
I know there is a Milhist MoS, but it seems there are many projects that just use italics for things within their own field of interest without it being listed in their own guidelines or MoS. When copyediting their articles it would be great to know exactly what to do with certain italicised names.
I am copyediting an article about a Dungeons and Dragons related BLP - Here they have italicised various dungeons and dragons modules which, to me, are roughly at the same level as a short story, or perhaps slightly lower than that. As such I have de-italicised them.
There seems to be nothing in the Toys or Boardgames projects notes which relate to this. However I find thy have italicised Monopoly throughout the article. I understand this is a particularly well know one, but it does not seem to be covered in any style guide that I can find.
Thanks Chaosdruid ( talk) 15:32, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Someone had used wiki mark up to generate the font now.com in Now (magazine), for some reason. I removed it here. I think that was the right thing to do. Is this covered here? I don't see it. If not, should it be? Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 21:26, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Some articles use CSS for a font-family definition (currently, it is 105 articles, see "font-family" - Search results).
The problem is that many of these definitions use non-free fonts that typically ship with Windows, but are unavailable to other users. In many cases, no fallback font has been defined.
More generally speaking, I think that font-family definitions are a bad idea in most cases. They are difficult to maintain. They lead to unexpected alternations in the typeface design. This is especially annoying for users who have carefully chosen their own font settings. -- mach ᵗᵃˡᵏ 10:10, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
One italicizes periodical titles, such as New York Times, New England Journal of Medicine, etc. One also italicizes internet-only publications such as Salon. What about blogs? It seems to me that they should also be italicized like The Huffington Post. But, I could not find any mention of this in WP:ITALICS. Thanks! — Spike Toronto 16:29, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
What do you guys think of the following wording:
The titles of websites may or may not be italicized depending on the type of site and what kid of content it features. Online magazines, newspapers, and news sites should generally be italicized (such as Salon.com or The Huffington Post). However, websites which simply aggregate news and have no original content should not be italicized. Online encyclopedias and dictionaries (like Wikipedia or Urban Dictionary) should be italicized. Websites primarily intended as advertisements for companies or products (like McDonalds.com) should not be italicized. Other types of websites should be decided on a case-by-case basis reflecting usage in reliable sources.
Kaldari ( talk) 05:13, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
I realise I've kind of missed the boat here, but I hate this. Surely, the guidelines as written now mean that every instance of "Wikipedia" should be changed to Wikipedia, right down to "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" on every page... I am strongly opposed to this. I remember when the guidelines were clarified so that webzines stopped being italicised, as they were not periodicals, and the idea of italicising something like BBC News or bbc.com strikes me as ridiculous. J Milburn ( talk) 19:29, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Tangentially related, I found it annoying that we gave two uncitable sources as examples. Yes, I know we can talk about Urban Dictionary without citing it, but I think it sets a good example to use sources that are citable within Wikipedia's guidelines. So I've changed "(like Wikipedia or Urban Dictionary)" to "(like Scholarpedia or Merriam-Webster Online)". Adrian J. Hunter( talk• contribs) 05:03, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
I have seen many articles about vectors and matrices that use boldface notations. Should these cases be added to boldface usage? See also: Euclidean vector#Representations and Matrix (mathematics)#Notation -- Octra Bond ( talk) 01:06, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
"The most accessible way to indicate emphasis is with HTML <em> tags or by enclosing the emphasized text within an {{em}} template." Where does the use of two single-quote marks fit (this would be italics over emphasis)? Should we not use them – or are they parsed into HTML as something like this? If it doesn't make any difference, should we not merely suggest people use this notation?. Grandiose ( me, talk, contribs) 09:03, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Editors may be interested in this RFC, along with the discussion of its implementation:
Should all subsidiary pages of the Manual of Style be made subpages of WP:MOS?
It's big; and it promises huge improvements. Great if everyone can be involved. Noetica Tea? 00:49, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
What is the logic behind allowing users to colour templates such as {{ navbox}} but not prose? I would suggest that we should develop a set of guideline to help improve the current usage
Gnevin ( talk) 00:26, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
[5] these colours can be a major issue from some Gnevin ( talk) 16:08, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
My own take on this (as someone who has fought tooth and nail to rid templates of arbitrary styling for years now) is that the MoS should have a dedicated page for templates containing the following advice:
Anyway, I applaud the general motivation behind this proposal, and I'm only sorry I never saw last week's navbox debate. Please keep me in the loop if this discussion goes anywhere else. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 14:22, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Should grouped episodes; multi-parters; which exists of more than one episode with the same name be in quotes (as an individual episode) or italicized (as a bigger work). I know that Doctor Who uses italics (ex. The End of Time), but there are many instances (ex. Over There (Fringe)) were it's just quoted like an individual episode would. So basically should it be "Title" two parter consisting of "Title (Part 1)" and "Title (Part 2)" or Title two parter consisting of "Title (Part 1)" and "Title (Part 2)". Xeworlebi ( talk) 18:23, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Should the following guidance about the usage of colours in navigation templates be add to this MoS Gnevin ( talk) 20:04, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
I think as long as we maintain sensible minimum contrast ratios and the colors are only enhancement rather than integral to the functionality, it'll be fine. I don't think we need all the specific instructions that are proposed here. Gigs ( talk) 17:01, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Also just stumbled on this Wikipedia:Deviations#Styles_and_markup_options Gnevin ( talk) 09:55, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
So, what do we do now Gnevin? Your proposal is great, and that's what we should aim for in the end. But might I suggest we try to achieve a smaller improvement for now, in order to reach more consensus? Cheers, Dodoïste ( talk) 00:28, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
{{User:Gnevin/colours}}
Gnevin (
talk)
21:44, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 9 |
I note the discussion above about using boldface for alternate names, but surely we should be bolding for redirects as set out by Wikipedia:Redirect#What_needs_to_be_done_on_pages_that_are_targets_of_redirects.3F? Another editor has been removing the boldface from redirects citing MOS:BOLD could this be clarified in the MOS?— Rod talk 21:08, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
The Wrestling Project is trying to be more consistent in our article writing, and we've come across an issue that we need some outside opinions on. Wrestlers often give their moves nicknames, and we are trying to decide whether they should be written it italics, put in quotations, or left in plain text. Should the move be given emphasis because it is a special move of a particular wrestler? Does anyone know of a relevant precedent in another sport? Here is an example of how it could be written:
Any opinions would be appreciated. Thanks. Nikki♥ 311 21:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Does the MOS have any statements regarding the use of colored text in articles? I assume it is frowned upon as unnecessary emphasis, but was looking for something "official". I didn't see anything on this page--if there is something in the MOS already, it should probably be repeated or linked here. -- LJ ( talk) 21:28, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
I am requesting comments on the interpretation of this guideline on bolding the family name in the lede of an article about a group of animals, at Talk Elephant#Bolding of Elephantidae in lede. -- Donald Albury 09:30, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Under Foreign terms, a sub-section of Italic face, is the following sentence.
For better accessibility, Latin language quotations should never be set in all-capitals or small capitals, even when such use might seem anachronistic.
Firstly, I would normally read this as stating the opposite of what was intended (i.e. I would understand "such use" as referring to the use of all-capitals).
Secondly, does this belong under "Italic face"?
--
Boson (
talk)
23:06, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
"If the article topic does not have a commonly accepted name, but is merely descriptive (e.g., history of the United States), the title does not need to appear in the first sentence, and is not bolded if it does."
Roman Britain is in bold. Unsurprisingly given the above, History of the United States isn't but History of Puerto Rico, an FA, is. A user has recently removed the bold from Scotland during the Roman Empire (a GA), which looks most odd to me. What does "descriptive" mean exactly? "Roman Britain" is a well-known phrase - but "Roman Scotland" (assuming there were such an article) wouldn't be. Why the distinction?
I can quite understand that if the title of the article e.g. the example of Electrical characteristics of dynamic loudspeakers in WP:LEAD isn't used it should not be bolded, but what is the purpose of creating this rather vague distinction, that is apparently widely ignored? Ben Mac Dui 11:46, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't understand the above. The sentences concerned have generally been through some kind of peer review. Presumably every single list on Wikipedia is "descriptive". This guideline needs to be changed urgently. I suggest removing:
and replacing it with:
A dynamic loudspeaker driver's chief electrical characteristic is its electrical impedance versus frequency.
Ben Mac Dui 07:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Support proposed change. Article topic should always be bolded in the opening sentence unless it is extremely awkward. History of the United States should be bolded. List names are awkward. Reywas92 Talk 21:02, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Oppose overly broad action. This seems to be a case of people favoring rules over content. (See WP:IAR.) Have any of you looked at History of the United States? You'll note that the phrase "History of the United States" does not appear in the lead section, which really makes me wonder how so many people think it needs to be bold. I'm sure it would be possible to rewrite the lead section to shoehorn the phrase in to the lead section, but that would be totally missing the point. I see no need for every article to restate its page name in bold print. I think the rule should be something along the lines of, “If the lead section evolves naturally to contain the article title, the first occurrence should be in bold.″ If it there, bold it; if not, not. Simple, easy. If the lead section is awkward because it states the article title, then the lead section should be rewritten. Remove the statement and improve the wording rather than trying to decide if it should be bold or not. — DragonHawk ( talk| hist) 05:23, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Starting an article with something like, "This is a list of United States Senators who served in the 110th United States Congress arranged by seniority" is just silly. The same sentence without the intermittent bold is better, but it still seems like it is unnecessarily repeating the title. There is no reason why a list called "List of United States Senators in the 110th Congress by seniority" shouldn't start, "The 102 United States Senators who served during the 110th United States Congress, are listed here by seniority. Seniority is determined..." It flows better, allows for additional information, and allows for linking. Since the bold iteration of the title is not supposed to contain links (for good reason), it is often necessary to repeat terms that should be linked just so they can be. At the very least, the guideline should state no preference for bolding such text. Preferably, bolding descriptive titles, especially long ones, would be discouraged. - Rrius ( talk) 06:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Oppose, for the time being, until the text address the issue of links within article titles. Consistency is needed, and perhaps always bolding is the way to go, but titles like History of France (or whatever) look terrible.-- Cúchullain t/ c 12:20, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
I noticed that the descriptive text here at MOS:BOLD seemed to be drifting from what was stated over at MOS:BOLDTITLE. Rather than try to keep two different MOS pages in sync, I figured we were better off referring readers to one location. The style guidance will thus be in a single location. That's easier for readers to follow, and easier for editors to maintain. It also means discussion can happen on a single talk page, and interested parties don't have to watch for discussions on two separate pages.
I'll see about continuing the discussion over at Wikipedia talk:Lead section.
Cheers! — DragonHawk ( talk| hist) 22:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I would like to see a guideline on how cross-references should be formatted. It isn't obvious.
or:
or (as in most print reference works):
remembering that hyperlinks aren't formatting and don't show up on paper.
I'm trying to start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#More italics clarification and inline .22see.22 Please contribute there if you can. -- Cedders tk 16:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
As of today, the hatnotes for the article look roughly like this:
The formatting of the notes sets a bad example because it doesn't follow what the article recommends. I understand that using examples helps to define text formatting, but starting off with precisely the sort of thing we are attempting to avoid doesn't seem wise. I'd leave the examples for the body of the article and use a more standard hatnote:
That follows the practice of reversing the use of italics to indicate emphasis. Personally, I think more emphasis on when and how would be a good thing. The article prohibits using using bold for emphasis in the article text, but hatnotes aren't really part of the article text proper, and even if so, this may be a good time to ignore the rules (in moderation):
I'd also combine the two sentences into a paragraph:
Lastly, what are the rules/conventions for having such hatnotes in the first place? Most of the other MoS subpages do not have similar notes. The
WP:TM
MOS:ICONS page uses a {{
nutshell}} to summarize the article, but that may not fit here:
This page in a nutshell: This page provides guidance on when to format text in articles. For instructions on how to do that, see Wikipedia:How to edit a page#Character formatting. |
Other similar boxes use bold text for emphasis, so this might be better:
This page in a nutshell: This page provides guidance on when to format text in articles. For instructions on how to do that, see Wikipedia:How to edit a page#Character formatting. |
Comments? — John Cardinal ( talk) 17:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
I am in a dispute with Ckatz about It Takes a Thief (1968 TV series). See the edit summaries on its history page, the diff pages thereto, and the talk page. Specifically, the main opening titles there contain a bit of spoken dialogue which contain deliberate and important emphasis. Over the course of the series' run, there were three different versions, each with a different actor (in character) saying something different. I had indicated these emphases with boldface, and eventually Ckatz came along and reverted all back to plain text except for the first instance, which he changed to italics, claiming guidelines supported him (why he thought that the first would satisfy all is beyond me). After I reverted, saying italics don't emphasize and certainly the first alone was not enough for the others, he reverted again, this time linking in this guideline page. I pointed out to him, accurately, that nothing here deals with a situation such as the one at hand. When he again reverted, he ignored that, saying that if I disagreed with the guideline I should do so there (meaning here, of course). Well, I told him again that I was not disgreeing with the regs in that case but pointing out the fact that they don't cover that situation, which was certainly not my oversight, and that I would bring it up there (here). Here I am. Let me further add that italics simply fail to add emphasis, especially within a lengthy passage (compare that last to the boldfaced words previous to gauge the differences in effect yourselves). I respectfully request both an addition to cover one-time-spoken statements not subject to being read in different ways by different people on different occasions that contain intentional emphasis, and also a reconsideration of the prohibition on boldface for emphasis at all. Thank you. -- Tbrittreid ( talk) 21:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Comment The choice of words to highlight, if any at all, is irrelevant to this aspect of the discussion. (Personally, I don't care about the word choice; I ended up here because Tbrittreid reverted an IP who disagreed with his use of boldface.) Simply put, the Manual of Style appears quite clear on this matter:
Tbrittreid insists that those sections don't apply in this case, and that - since he feels there is no direct mention of how to format this particular case - he is free to use boldface. I've asked for some proof - any proof - that boldface is warranted under the Manual of Style, but he refuses to provide it. Frankly, this is a silly thing to argue about, as the Manual of Style seems to address it already. However, if there is even the slightest chance that the MoS is not crystal-clear on the correct option, an opinion from the regulars here would be welcomed and beneficial. Thanks in advance. -- Ckatz chat spy 22:48, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Italics is preferred by style guides for emphasis, and boldface is deprecated. That is simple fact that can be verified by turning to a style guide, which you apparently cannot or will not do. It does not matter whether the material to be emphasized is within quoted material or not, which appears to be a distinction you are making. If it is not, then you need to be clearer. - Rrius ( talk) 00:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Since you are neither Ckatz nor Rrius, I won't enforce my warning against your post. As I said previously in no uncertain terms, outside style guides and any unilateral or arbitrary assertion are irrelevant because emphasis is an effect to be created; it either exists or it does not, and italics do not actually, physically create emphasis in Wikipedia text, as can be seen from examining this thread and the article talk page thread linked into my initial post that launched this thread. Both contain various words here and there that are italicized or boldfaced for emphasis, and it is patently obvious which are and are not emphasized, corroborated by the fact that neither of the other two posters here have so much as acknowledged this assertion. I freely concede that italics do work that way elsewhere on the internet, such as IMDb discussion boards (if there are at least two characters to emphasize, although sometimes that's not long enough), but the effect does not happen here. -- Tbrittreid ( talk) 23:34, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Finally, you said emphasis was to "distract the reader from the regular flow of the reading", which is stopping you in your tracks, not merely highlighting, which is the actual point of emphasis. Bold text, such as you have annoyingly used in your contributions, is distracting and annoying and disrupts the reader in such a way as to make him or her stop reading and start again. That is not the point emphasis, but is just bad writing. Just so you know, if your next contribution doesn't actually make some attempt to defend your position, as opposed to attacking me or issuing unexplained ultimatums, I'm just going to assume you are a troll and ignore you. My assumption, however, is that you are merely a poor writer, as evidenced by your barely comprehensible contribution of 21:26 UTC on 20 November. If your request is that I provide citations to style guides, then say so clearly, preferably with the words "please provide citations to style guides". I think that might be what you are asking for, but you aren't doing a great job of doing it. Your abrasive style has made the attempt to parse your contributions less than appealing, so if that is not what you are looking for, please forgive me. - Rrius ( talk) 02:01, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Is there a MOS guideline for text size? I can't find anything that says 110% font size (for example) is discouraged for normal prose text, lists, and table contents (as a form of emphasis), but I think it ought to be. — Andrwsc ( talk · contribs) 18:58, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
font-size
style (at 88%). —
Andrwsc (
talk ·
contribs)
01:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)Can strike text be used in the article? I don't see a section about that here.— Chris! c/ t 03:10, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Because Italic text is generated on Wikipedia using double apostrophes, using an apostrophe after an italicised word often creates a mess. Here's an example from Philip Campbell (scientist): 'He takes direct editorial responsibility for the content of Natures editorials, writing some of them. Philip Campbell is Natures seventh Editor-in-Chief since the journal was launched in 1869.' The problem arises because the title of the journal Nature is italicised, but also used as a possessive. Is there any way of avoiding this problem? Or should the sentence simply be rephrased? Robofish ( talk) 02:14, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
… content of ''Nature''<!-- -->'s editorials …
… content of <i>Nature</i>'s editorials …
<nowiki>
tags. That is:
content of ''Nature''{{'}}s editorials
… of ''Nature''\'s editorials…
would make sense to me. Would people watching this conversation be opposed to a suggestion/patch for such a thing? It might (validly) be called yet another bit of idiosyncratic syntax for MediaWiki. —
DragonHawk (
talk|
hist)
21:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)I don't know that there is anything that could really be done to "fix" it (without adding new syntax). Since the single-quote-mark is not directional, there is no way for the parser to really "know" what someone means. (Maybe you wanted to bold the middle of a long italic phase.) One could look for shortest match first, or try and prefer words (no spaces), etc., but it's always going to be wrong for some usage case. Right? — DragonHawk ( talk| hist) 02:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello, we at WikiProject Films are trying to determine consensus about whether or not bold formatting is appropriate in film articles (beyond the title, of course). MOS:BOLD makes clear the "few special uses" of the formatting, but traditionally, articles under WikiProject Films use the formatting to highlight the names of the actors and their roles in the "Cast" sections. Is it a tradition that needs to be bucked or not? Find discussion here and please share your thoughts! — Erik ( talk • contrib) 12:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Quick question regarding the use of boldface in quotations. I'm quoting a bit of text where the source itself uses boldface to emphasize certain phrases. Should I retain the boldface in the quotation? The text in question can be seen at Big Black#1984: Touring and label signing, in the quotebox on the right. Looking at BOLD, I can't tell whether I should preserve the bolding used in the original source or not. Thanks. -- IllaZilla ( talk) 21:00, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
There is currently an ongoing discussion about the future of this and others MoS naming style. Please consider the issues raised in the discussion and vote if you wish GnevinAWB ( talk) 20:58, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Current use seems to be mixed. WP:ITALICS doesn't specifically mention songs, only cantatas and motets / operas, operettas, oratorios are mentioned. Should they be in in italics? I believe they should, considering songs are works of art. If not, the list should preferably reflect that. jonkerz ♠ 18:19, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
The section Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(text_formatting)#Other_uses lists cases where bold is used and then goes on to say it is usually applied automatically, I reckon we could summarise this into:
Note that this includes one of the points in 'contraindications'. The emphasis part is covered in more detail in 'italics'. That leaves us with other languages, which if we drop all the 'when not to' and stick to 'when to' we could omit this section too. Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 11:36, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
I understand that names of works are often put in italics. I notice that this guideline says short works (such as short poems) should instead have their title in quotes. What is the reason for this? Is it a rule we should change? It seems a bit odd to me. I notice that it is applied inconsistently. For example, the featured article on To Autumn puts the name in quotes but has the names of the poems Lamia and The Eve of Saint Agnes in italics. This might make sense if Lamina and The Eve of Saint Agnes are longer works... but their names are given in quotes within their own articles. Yaris678 ( talk) 23:09, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Back in the day, it was acceptable to use boldface as an accessible alternative to colouring a table cell – or at least no-one complained on MoS grounds when this list and others similar went through FLC – and it's a rather neater alternative for the sighted majority than scattering random symbols over the table. MOS:BOLD#Contraindications says we should use italics, not boldface, for emphasis in article text. Could someone clarify whether this contraindication definitely also applies to table cells, which I don't really think of as article text? thanks, Struway2 ( talk) 09:56, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm getting conflicting views as to whether the title of a reference that would normally be italicized in an article should be italicized. For example, with regards to video game Super Mario Bros. Deluxe:
Harris, Craig (1999-07-21). "IGN: Super Mario Bros. Deluxe Review". IGN. Retrieved 2008-04-23.
vs.
Harris, Craig (1999-07-21). "IGN: Super Mario Bros. Deluxe Review". IGN. Retrieved 2008-04-23.
What is the convention on this? I'm currently being told two separate things on this. – MuZemike 20:06, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
At present there is an objection at
WT:FLC to having table captions in bold face (the browser Wikimedia cross-project default) because they are not listed as exceptions to
WP:MOSBOLD. It would seem to me that virtually every table caption on Wikipedia uses boldface, so if this guideline is meant to document consensus practice, then table captions should be listed as one of the exceptions. I'm loathe to alter the guideline without discussion, so does anyone have any comments? --
RexxS (
talk)
17:07, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
In Even (band) I've italicized the band name in the article text to distinguish it from the common English word "even", rather than reformulate every sentence so it is distinguishable by its capitalization alone. Opinions? Better ideas? -- Lexein ( talk) 17:02, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi
I am finding that several projects are italicising titles (in articles and in article titles)- is there anywhere I can go to see some guidelines on how this should be done? (A list of MoS'/guidelines for each project etc.)
I know there is a Milhist MoS, but it seems there are many projects that just use italics for things within their own field of interest without it being listed in their own guidelines or MoS. When copyediting their articles it would be great to know exactly what to do with certain italicised names.
I am copyediting an article about a Dungeons and Dragons related BLP - Here they have italicised various dungeons and dragons modules which, to me, are roughly at the same level as a short story, or perhaps slightly lower than that. As such I have de-italicised them.
There seems to be nothing in the Toys or Boardgames projects notes which relate to this. However I find thy have italicised Monopoly throughout the article. I understand this is a particularly well know one, but it does not seem to be covered in any style guide that I can find.
Thanks Chaosdruid ( talk) 15:32, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Someone had used wiki mark up to generate the font now.com in Now (magazine), for some reason. I removed it here. I think that was the right thing to do. Is this covered here? I don't see it. If not, should it be? Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 21:26, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Some articles use CSS for a font-family definition (currently, it is 105 articles, see "font-family" - Search results).
The problem is that many of these definitions use non-free fonts that typically ship with Windows, but are unavailable to other users. In many cases, no fallback font has been defined.
More generally speaking, I think that font-family definitions are a bad idea in most cases. They are difficult to maintain. They lead to unexpected alternations in the typeface design. This is especially annoying for users who have carefully chosen their own font settings. -- mach ᵗᵃˡᵏ 10:10, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
One italicizes periodical titles, such as New York Times, New England Journal of Medicine, etc. One also italicizes internet-only publications such as Salon. What about blogs? It seems to me that they should also be italicized like The Huffington Post. But, I could not find any mention of this in WP:ITALICS. Thanks! — Spike Toronto 16:29, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
What do you guys think of the following wording:
The titles of websites may or may not be italicized depending on the type of site and what kid of content it features. Online magazines, newspapers, and news sites should generally be italicized (such as Salon.com or The Huffington Post). However, websites which simply aggregate news and have no original content should not be italicized. Online encyclopedias and dictionaries (like Wikipedia or Urban Dictionary) should be italicized. Websites primarily intended as advertisements for companies or products (like McDonalds.com) should not be italicized. Other types of websites should be decided on a case-by-case basis reflecting usage in reliable sources.
Kaldari ( talk) 05:13, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
I realise I've kind of missed the boat here, but I hate this. Surely, the guidelines as written now mean that every instance of "Wikipedia" should be changed to Wikipedia, right down to "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" on every page... I am strongly opposed to this. I remember when the guidelines were clarified so that webzines stopped being italicised, as they were not periodicals, and the idea of italicising something like BBC News or bbc.com strikes me as ridiculous. J Milburn ( talk) 19:29, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Tangentially related, I found it annoying that we gave two uncitable sources as examples. Yes, I know we can talk about Urban Dictionary without citing it, but I think it sets a good example to use sources that are citable within Wikipedia's guidelines. So I've changed "(like Wikipedia or Urban Dictionary)" to "(like Scholarpedia or Merriam-Webster Online)". Adrian J. Hunter( talk• contribs) 05:03, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
I have seen many articles about vectors and matrices that use boldface notations. Should these cases be added to boldface usage? See also: Euclidean vector#Representations and Matrix (mathematics)#Notation -- Octra Bond ( talk) 01:06, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
"The most accessible way to indicate emphasis is with HTML <em> tags or by enclosing the emphasized text within an {{em}} template." Where does the use of two single-quote marks fit (this would be italics over emphasis)? Should we not use them – or are they parsed into HTML as something like this? If it doesn't make any difference, should we not merely suggest people use this notation?. Grandiose ( me, talk, contribs) 09:03, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Editors may be interested in this RFC, along with the discussion of its implementation:
Should all subsidiary pages of the Manual of Style be made subpages of WP:MOS?
It's big; and it promises huge improvements. Great if everyone can be involved. Noetica Tea? 00:49, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
What is the logic behind allowing users to colour templates such as {{ navbox}} but not prose? I would suggest that we should develop a set of guideline to help improve the current usage
Gnevin ( talk) 00:26, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
[5] these colours can be a major issue from some Gnevin ( talk) 16:08, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
My own take on this (as someone who has fought tooth and nail to rid templates of arbitrary styling for years now) is that the MoS should have a dedicated page for templates containing the following advice:
Anyway, I applaud the general motivation behind this proposal, and I'm only sorry I never saw last week's navbox debate. Please keep me in the loop if this discussion goes anywhere else. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 14:22, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Should grouped episodes; multi-parters; which exists of more than one episode with the same name be in quotes (as an individual episode) or italicized (as a bigger work). I know that Doctor Who uses italics (ex. The End of Time), but there are many instances (ex. Over There (Fringe)) were it's just quoted like an individual episode would. So basically should it be "Title" two parter consisting of "Title (Part 1)" and "Title (Part 2)" or Title two parter consisting of "Title (Part 1)" and "Title (Part 2)". Xeworlebi ( talk) 18:23, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Should the following guidance about the usage of colours in navigation templates be add to this MoS Gnevin ( talk) 20:04, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
I think as long as we maintain sensible minimum contrast ratios and the colors are only enhancement rather than integral to the functionality, it'll be fine. I don't think we need all the specific instructions that are proposed here. Gigs ( talk) 17:01, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Also just stumbled on this Wikipedia:Deviations#Styles_and_markup_options Gnevin ( talk) 09:55, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
So, what do we do now Gnevin? Your proposal is great, and that's what we should aim for in the end. But might I suggest we try to achieve a smaller improvement for now, in order to reach more consensus? Cheers, Dodoïste ( talk) 00:28, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
{{User:Gnevin/colours}}
Gnevin (
talk)
21:44, 18 July 2011 (UTC)