![]() | 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 6 | → | Archive 9 |
I realize this isn't the appropriate place for this conversation, but I had an inquiry about boldfacing that no editors in the pertinent area have addressed yet. I would appreciate any opinions. Thanks! Doniago ( talk) 16:18, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
MOS:BOLD#Other uses says "Use boldface in the remainder of the article only in a few special cases:", followed by a list. This is ambiguous: it could mean either "Use boldface in the remainder of the article only in the following special cases:" or "Use boldface in the remainder of the article only in a few special cases, such as:". Removal of this ambiguity would render some discussions of other special cases, such as are found here and in the archives, unnecessary.
The special case that interests me is the bolding of the topic of each item in an embedded list. The main MOS page does this several times, for example here, and I don't see why any part of the MOS would want to proscribe something that its authors themselves find useful. But I ubderstand from reading past threads here that some projects do proscribe it, and that some editors would like this generalised. I don't really care what the decision is, but it would be good to remove the ambiguity MOS-wide rather than project by project and issue by issue. -- Stfg ( talk) 11:15, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Do papal encyclicals take italics? Are they more like books (which do) or essays and papers (which don't), or is style established somewhere? I tend to think they do, but usage is mixed. To take random examples, they appear split: Ecclesiam Suam, Etsi Nos, Providentissimus Deus, Mirari Vos, Mysterium Fidei (encyclical), Dilectissima Nobis, Qui Pluribus. Should we add papal encyclical to either the do or don't list for consistency? Station1 ( talk) 21:40, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm just wondering, should it be mentioned that the use of colors in an article should not be used in order to portray a certain point of view? ViperSnake151 Talk 14:52, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
I've started a discussion here on whether italics should be used for names of spacecraft (cf/ those for ships), and if so whether this should be explicitly mentioned in the MoS - any input there would be appreciated. Thanks, Shimgray | talk | 21:07, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
I noticed two different passages concerning the use of "
scare quotes" in the Manual of Style:
To me, reading the latter when one hasn't read the former would seem to imply that scare quotes are an acceptable use of quotation marks in articles. Which is it? Do we need more clarity? I know it's not exactly a direct contradiction, but it isn't clear and people reading the latter section could easily assume (as I did) that use of scare quotes is fine. Personally, I think that the use of scare quotes should be accepted in articles, when necessary. I have seen many articles where they are used and where I think their use is beneficial, for example to signify that the word or phrase does not have its usual, literal or conventional meaning, or is only applicable in that context.
So, what is our stance on scare quotes and can we change the wording in the MOS to reflect that more clearly? Thanks. -
MsBatfish (
talk)
08:45, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
What is the standard font size of Wikipedia for normal text in the aricle?-- 76.31.238.174 ( talk) 02:29, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Are titles of masses supposed to be italicized? Some articles italicize them, but others do not. This seems pretty inconsistent to me. -- Ixfd64 ( talk) 19:52, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Template talk:Lang-en#Remove italicization from Template:Lang-en may be of interest, for its connection to MOS:ITALICS. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ Contrib. 12:41, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis/Tennis names#RfC: Can a wikiproject require no-diacritics names, based on an organisation's rule or commonness in English press?. This has also been raised at
Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (people)#See Talk:Sasa Tuksar. —
SMcCandlish
Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ
Contrib. 18:35, 19 March 2012 (UTC) —
SMcCandlish
Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ
Contrib.
18:35, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Can you all have a look at Template_talk:University_of_Pittsburgh#Removed_colours . Thanks Gnevin ( talk) 08:40, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Does {{ Airport codes}} follow MOS:BOLD#Boldface? For example, for Glasgow International Airport we get ( IATA: GLA, ICAO: EGPF) Perhaps the answer is "yes" because that template is designed for use in an airport article's lead sentence? 67.101.5.138 ( talk) 01:19, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
This edit suggests that the names of all websites ought to be in italics. I can't see why e.g. twitter.com should be italicised. -- Michael Bednarek ( talk) 08:34, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
{{
Cite web}}
does so: McNutt, Harry (2012). "Some Article". Example.com. {{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |url=
(
help). Where a discrete work title is discernible (e.g. in the banner or the HTML <title>...</title>
), use that instead of or as a subtitle for the site name. See, e.g., {{
AzB player}}
. This is especially important when Web server at a domain name and website in the conceptual sense are not the same thing (many sites like eBay consist of multiple third-level domain name servers, while various others, especially colleges and universities, host numerous discrete publications and databases and sites on the same server. Anyway, not italicizing here is basically a matter of conventional laziness, like failure to italicize video game names and software releases (Mass Effect, Microsoft Office 2011). The title of an electronic publication is still the title of a publication. I'm not sure why so many people's brains seem to short circuit on this, though my first guess would be because our keyboards don't have an "ITAL" key that puts stuff in italics, so over the last several decades we've simply gotten used to non-italicized titles of online stuff when we're writing online. That doesn't mean that more formal style is inapplicable in formal writing, as in an encyclopedia.|work=
was chosen; it would not be in italics with |publisher=
which I think is more fitting. As for the term "works": not all works are italicised, e.g short stories, songs, TV episodes are not. I think the current instructions about the italicisation of website names are consistent with previous discussions. If the proposed wording gets adopted, it will have to be implementd at {{
Infobox website}}, which will have wide-ranging effect, not the least of which is the article
Wikipedia – popcorn time. As to sources: they are irrelevant for Wikipedia style issues; they are ambiguous and contradictory (
UCP does not use italics for their own blogs), so Wikipedia sets its own style guides based on encyclopedic principles. --
Michael Bednarek (
talk)
03:49, 20 March 2012 (UTC)The MOS currently recommends italicizing the names of "Art exhibitions". Should this be generalized to named special exhibitions of types such as historical, scientific, educational, cultural, literary, and such? Examples would include:
It's not easy to pigeonhole some of these examples into a single category, which illustrates the point that trying to restrict italicization only to art exhibitions is somewhat artificial and arbitrary, especially since most of these exhibitions have an artistic and esthetic content as well.
No special treatment would be given to unnamed or generic exhibits, such as "A high school exhibit on dental care which was opened with a special reception on Friday", only specifically named or titled exhibitions.
Note that this style already seems to be used widely in Wikipedia, but not consistently, due to lack of clear guidance in MOS. Apologies if this has already been discussed here; I don't know how to search the Archived discussions effectively. -- Reify-tech ( talk) 03:21, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
User:Noetica has removed commas from instances of "e.g.," in the MOS. He considers these commas to be inessential and says that they lack justification. He bases their removal on the fact that the MOS contains some instances of "e.g." and "i.e." in which the comma has not been added. And so, to achieve a "simple and consistent style" he thinks that such commas ought to be removed from wherever they appear.
I have tried to restore these commas, but Noetica has reverted my edits.
Noetica has scorned my citation of Garner's Modern American Usage (3rd edition) as a mere external guide, and says that such guides disagree among themselves. If he or anyone else knows of a style guide that recommends the omission of these commas, I should be glad to hear of it.
The fact of the matter is that the absence of these commas in various places in the MOS and elsewhere is a simple mistake or oversight, and they should be restored as soon as possible. "E.g." and "i.e." are parenthetic expressions and must always be enclosed in commas. I'll quote from Strunk and White's The Elements of Style (4th edition), section I, 3, which is titled "Enclose parenthetic expressions between commas."
"The abbreviations etc., i.e., and e.g. ... are parenthetic and should be punctuated accordingly.
Letters, packages, etc., should go here."
Interested editors should comment on the dispute here. Wahrmund ( talk) 19:35, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Wahrmund, thank you for raising the matter in talk as I had suggested; and thank you for alerting me at my own talkpage. Now, we used to have guidance on punctuation following "e.g." and "i.e.", but it was summarily and unilaterally reversed by admin
User:JHunterJ, and a dispute ensued. See
history of
WP:ABBR, 8 June 2012 – present. I have removed any trace of such recommendations until there is a properly conducted discussion of the matter, with respect and wide consultation on all sides.
Wahrmund, I caution you and everyone else concerned to be scrupulous in avoiding misrepresentations, just as you have so far avoided incivility. I do not "scorn" external guides: I collect them and read them as part of a sustained program of research.
I remind participants that all MOS talkpages are under an ArbCom order enabling
discretionary sanctions against users, for behavioural or procedural lapses.
I propose that no further discussion be conducted here on this style issue. It belongs at
this section of the talkpage for WP:ABBR. I will take part there when order is duly restored; alternatively, I will come there and propose a better location for the discussion.
☺
Noetica
Tea?
04:56, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
The
List of Valencian monarchs has
and many other entries in the list with bold text. Should the dates and names of these monarchs be in bold, or not? I think not, but I would welcome a more expert opinion. -- DThomsen8 ( talk) 21:56, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
There is a discussion at Talk:Wikipedia#Italic title referencing this guideline. The last paragraph of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Text formatting#Italic face should be updated to reflect the non-italic status of Wikipedia, Citizendium, Conservapedia, Nupedia, and probably others, within the project and uniformly across reliable and scholarly sources. I am also unable to find any third-party references to Scholarpedia which uses italics, so I think that's wrong. 71.212.250.193 ( talk) 00:46, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
I removed the MOS-violating emboldening from the template
which looked like this
Sincerely, Kiefer .Wolfowitz 22:10, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
O Masters of MOS, again I summon thee, and this time notice I put the topic in the section heading so on one need change it this time. Please opine on the correct formatting (including whether and how to italicize) of the italicized text below. I can't find anything in MOS already on these points.
Also, are section-to-section links as seen in (1) even appropriate? EEng ( talk) 04:22, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
User:Stfg touched on this last year but there wasn't much discussion. I couldn't find any other previous discussion on the issue.
The only use of boldface in lists currently allowed by WP:MOSBOLD is in definition lists (aka glossaries). However, I think boldfaced items would also be useful for annotated lists, especially those which contain a substantial description of each item. Having the item in bold would visually aid the reader in identifying what the item is, clearly separating it from the annotation. For example, compare these two possibilities from List of Thai royal residences:
|
|
I know the red link is even uglier in bold, but I think the benefit outweighs this aesthetic failing. Since parts of the annotations are linked, and not all the item subjects are, the blue appearance of links cannot be relied on to help the reader visually identify each subject the way they do in disambiguation pages. Use of boldface in this matter isn't much different from in definition lists, so I'm not seeing obvious reasons not to allow it. -- Paul_012 ( talk) 16:33, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
You are invited to participate in an RfC at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/The Beatles on the issue of capitalising the definite article when mentioning that band's name in running prose. This long-standing dispute is the subject of an open mediation case and we are requesting your help with determining the current community consensus. Thank you for your time. For the mediators. ~ GabeMc ( talk| contribs) 21:36, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Which style should be used for the name of a series of books? Clearly an individual book in the series should be in italics as stated, but it's not clear whether the title of a series should also be in italics or plain (or something else). There's not a lot of consistency - for example The Forsyte Saga mostly uses italics, while Aubrey–Maturin series uses unformatted text. -- David Edgar ( talk) 11:28, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
The <u>...</u>
element was reintroduced in HTML5, and redefined: "represents a span of text offset from its surrounding content without conveying any extra emphasis or importance, and for which the conventional typographic presentation is underlining; for example, a span of text in Chinese that is a proper name (a Chinese proper name mark), or span of text that is known to be misspelled."
The only guideline for underlines is currently at MOS:BADEMPHASIS, which basically state not to use if for emphasis. Should we take another look at this? --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 18:40, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
<u>...</u>
tags".
Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (
talk)
13:36, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
<u>...</u>
isn't supposed to be used simply to stick lines under things if I'm following things correctly, so there's no contradiction there. The guideline is still "don't underline things": I suppose a corollary could be added to the effect that "the <u>...</u>
element can be used to note that text should be offset, as underlining would be used in a book, but don't expect for the text to actually be underlined in user agents"?
Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (
talk)
12:09, 7 January 2013 (UTC)Hello,
you should note that short fiction and novelettes should be put in quotes. Regards.-- Tomcat ( 7) 13:47, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
There is an Rfc at Talk:Wikipedia#RfC: Wikipedia in italics? that may interest you. Please come and read the summary, then include your !vote if you would like to do so. Thank you in advance for your consideration. – PAINE ELLSWORTH CLIMAX! 18:36, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
I know this has probably been discussed before, but it's come up again, and CCC and all that. What are your opinions on italicisation of "Wikipedia"? drewmunn talk 11:42, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
According to the CMOS (16th edition, pp.752–753 14.244–5): "Titles of websites are generally set in Roman without quotation marks and capitalized headline-style ... Specific titles of blogs—which are analogous to periodicals—should be set in italics". Headline-style would not be italicized, so why does the current MOS state:
"Website titles may or may not be italicized depending on the type of site and what kind of content it features. Online magazines, newspapers, and news sites with original content should generally be italicized (Salon.com or The Huffington Post). Online encyclopedias and dictionaries should also be italicized (Scholarpedia or Merriam-Webster Online). Other types of websites should be decided on a case-by-case basis." (emphasis added)
Any thoughts? GabeMc ( talk| contribs) 23:38, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Comment. The general rule is that the names of publications, such as books, journals, magazines, newspapers, and encyclopedias should be italicized; publications of short length, such as articles within a journal, magazine, newspaper or encyclopedia, short stories, and pamphlets should be set off with quote marks. The typographical issue here is what to do with the names of websites, if anything. I would suggest that if the website is the online analog of a hard-copy publication, such as a book, journal, magazine, newspaper, or encyclopedia, then it should be italicized; if the website is not the online analog of a hard-copy publication, then no typographical device should be used. In the latter case, it is just a proper name, and should be capitalized as such. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 01:58, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
|publisher=
BBC News
and thus avoid italicising. On the other side, we have 'National Geographic', which I grew up with as a magazine and I'm happier with italcising it even though it's now an organisation probably much like BBC News. So I feel really weirdly inconsistent about it all. --
Ohc
¡digame!¿que pasa?
15:06, 16 May 2013 (UTC)What kind of website (if any) do you think is not a creative work?
Comment. Chicago and the APA agree on italicizing Encyclopaedia Britannica Online, Wikipedia, and other online reference-work sites. They agree on romanizing nonreference sites that have names like NYTimes.com, Facebook, and IMDb. Otherwise they disagree: APA uses roman where Chicago uses italic.
The new APA Style Guide to Electronic References (2012) romanizes the names of websites and blogs:
But it says that online reference works such as Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary and Wikipedia fall in the category of books, not websites.
Your call: Chicago or APA? -- Dervorguilla ( talk) 06:31, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi, please see
this discussion at WikiProject Military history. We wish to style the † symbol properly, in a way that looks more like the 2nd or 5th example in
- the default sans-serif version (†) usually looks like the 1st example, which has caused problems and raised questions. Please reply there (to keep everything centralized), with suggestions on how to best implement this, and if it is possible to achieve high-percentage reliable styling. (I've not kept up-to-date with CSS over the last few years, but my tests can be seen a few replies down, in the thread). Much thanks. –
Quiddity (
talk)
20:23, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
I generally remove italics from references to Bills and Acts of Parliament when I come across them, because I've not found anything in MOS advocating their use, but they seem to be commonly used in articles. Any legal experts with an opinion either way? [2] says "Court cases are italicized, but acts are not." Dave.Dunford ( talk) 10:10, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
How is it that Baron King of Lothbury is not permissible in use but Baron Stirrup and Baron Walker of Aldringham is permissible in the main body of text in regards to the use of 'bolding'? Nford24 ( Want to have a chat?) 16:28, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi. After much editing in place articles I would like comment and guidance on aspects that I have been correcting based on my reading of Text formatting style, and if there is a consensus as to if what I am doing is correct.
I can often come across a person’s name in the body text (not lede) of an article that is bolded, something like: "the ecclesiastical parish incumbent is The Revd Derick Wormald", or it might be "the primary school head teacher is Mr D Wormald". Always these seem non-notable people with no independent references for personal notability. I have been de-bolding these (but not removing them) by what I am assuming is according to MOSBOLD guidelines. I would like an opinion on whether my de-bolding action here is reasonable, and if there are exceptions that might apply in these cases.
Also in place articles I find and remove italics that are often liberally sprinkled over an article's street and public house names, and religious references, something like "the local public houses are the Blue Ox and the Red Lion" or "the village shop is on the High Street next to the Primary School", or "Someville is part of The Ouse Group of the Deanery of Widnes". I know that italics apply to creative works and ships, and there can be exceptions for emphasis. But would such examples normally fall under the need for emphasis ? Many thanks. Acabashi ( talk) 00:43, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Can someone remove the italics from the Phillip Phillips article? For some reason, even though that's a BLP article of a person, the title is italicized, when it shouldn't be, and I can't find the template in the article that's causing this. Nightscream ( talk) 03:05, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
If we have an article on a magazine with a foreign title, we italicize that title and in the lead put the English translation behind it between parentheses (e.g. La Salamandre (English: The Salamander) is a nature magazine...). My question is, should the English translation be italicized or not? The guideline is not clear about that (or, at least, I couldn't find any clear guidance). Thanks. -- Randykitty ( talk) 08:46, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Added a section on substituting PUA characters so the article can be edited by AWB, and tagging them for tracking. — kwami ( talk) 02:55, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
I would like to add the following text under the Font size section:
The use of reduced fontsize should be used sparingly. In no case should the resulting fontsize drop below 11px (85% on systems using 96 dpi display setting) to avoid illegible text. A common mistake is the use of smaller fontsizes (using {{ small}} or inline CSS) inside infoboxes and navboxes, which already use a smaller fontsize.
Comments? — Edokter ( talk) — 18:20, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
The examples of bad right-to-left formatting now display correctly. Are these work-arounds no longer necessary? Or is this maybe the effect of browser updates? — kwami ( talk) 22:34, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
kwami I agree with Odysseus. The problem is not that AWB can't edit the article is that PUA characters show different in various systems and in most cases show nothing. This is the reason we fix them. The Manual of Style should remain independed of faulty software etc. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 07:53, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
MOS:BOLD#Other uses includes this:
Use boldface ... in a few special cases:
- Table headers and captions
- Description (definition, association) lists (example: Glossary of the American trucking industry and List of Australian inventions)
...
In the first two cases, the appropriate markup automatically adds the boldface formatting; do not use the explicit triple-apostrophe markup.
However List of Australian inventions is a bad example - it does not use appropriate markup described in ( Description (definition, association) lists - it uses the explicit triple-apostrophe markup expressly "forbidden" by MOS. Surely we can find a better example. Mitch Ames ( talk) 14:26, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
At MOS:NUM, there is a discussion over whether we should force numbers to use mixed fonts when uncertainties are involved, to ensure that they line up exactly. Under 'Uncertainty', the MOS currently gives an example with default fonts, but then advises us to use a template that changes this to monospace, though for only part of the number. The question is whether the template should be changed to accommodate the MOS, or if the MOS should be changed to accommodate the template. Currently, there are only 33 articles that have monospace uncertainties, and over 800 that do not (they use a different template), but at least one editor is insisting that the MOS and the other 800+ articles be brought into line with the 33, and discussion has come to a standstill. — kwami ( talk) 02:49, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
1234567890
0987654321
3762891045
9847611199
On the MOS talk page, we're discussing bot-proof hyphens. I think this might be a good place to mention them. Maybe s.t. like the following?
page = 2{{hyphen}}4
— kwami ( talk) 06:46, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
{{
sic|2-4|hide=y}}
should do it, too. Either way, you can include a note: {{sic|2-4|hide=y|reason=This is "chapter 2, page 4" not "pages 2-4".}}
or 2
{{hyphen|reason=This is "chapter 2, page 4" not "pages 2-4".}}
4
if you think people may not understand what you're doing. Anyway, if there's a bot that is still incorrectly "fixing" these hyphens inside {{
sic}}
, it needs to be recoded to stop doing that. Nothing in {{sic}}
should ever be altered by any bot. —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ⚞(Ʌⱷ҅̆⚲͜ⱷ^)≼
04:47, 29 March 2014 (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 6 | → | Archive 9 |
I realize this isn't the appropriate place for this conversation, but I had an inquiry about boldfacing that no editors in the pertinent area have addressed yet. I would appreciate any opinions. Thanks! Doniago ( talk) 16:18, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
MOS:BOLD#Other uses says "Use boldface in the remainder of the article only in a few special cases:", followed by a list. This is ambiguous: it could mean either "Use boldface in the remainder of the article only in the following special cases:" or "Use boldface in the remainder of the article only in a few special cases, such as:". Removal of this ambiguity would render some discussions of other special cases, such as are found here and in the archives, unnecessary.
The special case that interests me is the bolding of the topic of each item in an embedded list. The main MOS page does this several times, for example here, and I don't see why any part of the MOS would want to proscribe something that its authors themselves find useful. But I ubderstand from reading past threads here that some projects do proscribe it, and that some editors would like this generalised. I don't really care what the decision is, but it would be good to remove the ambiguity MOS-wide rather than project by project and issue by issue. -- Stfg ( talk) 11:15, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Do papal encyclicals take italics? Are they more like books (which do) or essays and papers (which don't), or is style established somewhere? I tend to think they do, but usage is mixed. To take random examples, they appear split: Ecclesiam Suam, Etsi Nos, Providentissimus Deus, Mirari Vos, Mysterium Fidei (encyclical), Dilectissima Nobis, Qui Pluribus. Should we add papal encyclical to either the do or don't list for consistency? Station1 ( talk) 21:40, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm just wondering, should it be mentioned that the use of colors in an article should not be used in order to portray a certain point of view? ViperSnake151 Talk 14:52, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
I've started a discussion here on whether italics should be used for names of spacecraft (cf/ those for ships), and if so whether this should be explicitly mentioned in the MoS - any input there would be appreciated. Thanks, Shimgray | talk | 21:07, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
I noticed two different passages concerning the use of "
scare quotes" in the Manual of Style:
To me, reading the latter when one hasn't read the former would seem to imply that scare quotes are an acceptable use of quotation marks in articles. Which is it? Do we need more clarity? I know it's not exactly a direct contradiction, but it isn't clear and people reading the latter section could easily assume (as I did) that use of scare quotes is fine. Personally, I think that the use of scare quotes should be accepted in articles, when necessary. I have seen many articles where they are used and where I think their use is beneficial, for example to signify that the word or phrase does not have its usual, literal or conventional meaning, or is only applicable in that context.
So, what is our stance on scare quotes and can we change the wording in the MOS to reflect that more clearly? Thanks. -
MsBatfish (
talk)
08:45, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
What is the standard font size of Wikipedia for normal text in the aricle?-- 76.31.238.174 ( talk) 02:29, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Are titles of masses supposed to be italicized? Some articles italicize them, but others do not. This seems pretty inconsistent to me. -- Ixfd64 ( talk) 19:52, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Template talk:Lang-en#Remove italicization from Template:Lang-en may be of interest, for its connection to MOS:ITALICS. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ Contrib. 12:41, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis/Tennis names#RfC: Can a wikiproject require no-diacritics names, based on an organisation's rule or commonness in English press?. This has also been raised at
Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (people)#See Talk:Sasa Tuksar. —
SMcCandlish
Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ
Contrib. 18:35, 19 March 2012 (UTC) —
SMcCandlish
Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ
Contrib.
18:35, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Can you all have a look at Template_talk:University_of_Pittsburgh#Removed_colours . Thanks Gnevin ( talk) 08:40, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Does {{ Airport codes}} follow MOS:BOLD#Boldface? For example, for Glasgow International Airport we get ( IATA: GLA, ICAO: EGPF) Perhaps the answer is "yes" because that template is designed for use in an airport article's lead sentence? 67.101.5.138 ( talk) 01:19, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
This edit suggests that the names of all websites ought to be in italics. I can't see why e.g. twitter.com should be italicised. -- Michael Bednarek ( talk) 08:34, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
{{
Cite web}}
does so: McNutt, Harry (2012). "Some Article". Example.com. {{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |url=
(
help). Where a discrete work title is discernible (e.g. in the banner or the HTML <title>...</title>
), use that instead of or as a subtitle for the site name. See, e.g., {{
AzB player}}
. This is especially important when Web server at a domain name and website in the conceptual sense are not the same thing (many sites like eBay consist of multiple third-level domain name servers, while various others, especially colleges and universities, host numerous discrete publications and databases and sites on the same server. Anyway, not italicizing here is basically a matter of conventional laziness, like failure to italicize video game names and software releases (Mass Effect, Microsoft Office 2011). The title of an electronic publication is still the title of a publication. I'm not sure why so many people's brains seem to short circuit on this, though my first guess would be because our keyboards don't have an "ITAL" key that puts stuff in italics, so over the last several decades we've simply gotten used to non-italicized titles of online stuff when we're writing online. That doesn't mean that more formal style is inapplicable in formal writing, as in an encyclopedia.|work=
was chosen; it would not be in italics with |publisher=
which I think is more fitting. As for the term "works": not all works are italicised, e.g short stories, songs, TV episodes are not. I think the current instructions about the italicisation of website names are consistent with previous discussions. If the proposed wording gets adopted, it will have to be implementd at {{
Infobox website}}, which will have wide-ranging effect, not the least of which is the article
Wikipedia – popcorn time. As to sources: they are irrelevant for Wikipedia style issues; they are ambiguous and contradictory (
UCP does not use italics for their own blogs), so Wikipedia sets its own style guides based on encyclopedic principles. --
Michael Bednarek (
talk)
03:49, 20 March 2012 (UTC)The MOS currently recommends italicizing the names of "Art exhibitions". Should this be generalized to named special exhibitions of types such as historical, scientific, educational, cultural, literary, and such? Examples would include:
It's not easy to pigeonhole some of these examples into a single category, which illustrates the point that trying to restrict italicization only to art exhibitions is somewhat artificial and arbitrary, especially since most of these exhibitions have an artistic and esthetic content as well.
No special treatment would be given to unnamed or generic exhibits, such as "A high school exhibit on dental care which was opened with a special reception on Friday", only specifically named or titled exhibitions.
Note that this style already seems to be used widely in Wikipedia, but not consistently, due to lack of clear guidance in MOS. Apologies if this has already been discussed here; I don't know how to search the Archived discussions effectively. -- Reify-tech ( talk) 03:21, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
User:Noetica has removed commas from instances of "e.g.," in the MOS. He considers these commas to be inessential and says that they lack justification. He bases their removal on the fact that the MOS contains some instances of "e.g." and "i.e." in which the comma has not been added. And so, to achieve a "simple and consistent style" he thinks that such commas ought to be removed from wherever they appear.
I have tried to restore these commas, but Noetica has reverted my edits.
Noetica has scorned my citation of Garner's Modern American Usage (3rd edition) as a mere external guide, and says that such guides disagree among themselves. If he or anyone else knows of a style guide that recommends the omission of these commas, I should be glad to hear of it.
The fact of the matter is that the absence of these commas in various places in the MOS and elsewhere is a simple mistake or oversight, and they should be restored as soon as possible. "E.g." and "i.e." are parenthetic expressions and must always be enclosed in commas. I'll quote from Strunk and White's The Elements of Style (4th edition), section I, 3, which is titled "Enclose parenthetic expressions between commas."
"The abbreviations etc., i.e., and e.g. ... are parenthetic and should be punctuated accordingly.
Letters, packages, etc., should go here."
Interested editors should comment on the dispute here. Wahrmund ( talk) 19:35, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Wahrmund, thank you for raising the matter in talk as I had suggested; and thank you for alerting me at my own talkpage. Now, we used to have guidance on punctuation following "e.g." and "i.e.", but it was summarily and unilaterally reversed by admin
User:JHunterJ, and a dispute ensued. See
history of
WP:ABBR, 8 June 2012 – present. I have removed any trace of such recommendations until there is a properly conducted discussion of the matter, with respect and wide consultation on all sides.
Wahrmund, I caution you and everyone else concerned to be scrupulous in avoiding misrepresentations, just as you have so far avoided incivility. I do not "scorn" external guides: I collect them and read them as part of a sustained program of research.
I remind participants that all MOS talkpages are under an ArbCom order enabling
discretionary sanctions against users, for behavioural or procedural lapses.
I propose that no further discussion be conducted here on this style issue. It belongs at
this section of the talkpage for WP:ABBR. I will take part there when order is duly restored; alternatively, I will come there and propose a better location for the discussion.
☺
Noetica
Tea?
04:56, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
The
List of Valencian monarchs has
and many other entries in the list with bold text. Should the dates and names of these monarchs be in bold, or not? I think not, but I would welcome a more expert opinion. -- DThomsen8 ( talk) 21:56, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
There is a discussion at Talk:Wikipedia#Italic title referencing this guideline. The last paragraph of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Text formatting#Italic face should be updated to reflect the non-italic status of Wikipedia, Citizendium, Conservapedia, Nupedia, and probably others, within the project and uniformly across reliable and scholarly sources. I am also unable to find any third-party references to Scholarpedia which uses italics, so I think that's wrong. 71.212.250.193 ( talk) 00:46, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
I removed the MOS-violating emboldening from the template
which looked like this
Sincerely, Kiefer .Wolfowitz 22:10, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
O Masters of MOS, again I summon thee, and this time notice I put the topic in the section heading so on one need change it this time. Please opine on the correct formatting (including whether and how to italicize) of the italicized text below. I can't find anything in MOS already on these points.
Also, are section-to-section links as seen in (1) even appropriate? EEng ( talk) 04:22, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
User:Stfg touched on this last year but there wasn't much discussion. I couldn't find any other previous discussion on the issue.
The only use of boldface in lists currently allowed by WP:MOSBOLD is in definition lists (aka glossaries). However, I think boldfaced items would also be useful for annotated lists, especially those which contain a substantial description of each item. Having the item in bold would visually aid the reader in identifying what the item is, clearly separating it from the annotation. For example, compare these two possibilities from List of Thai royal residences:
|
|
I know the red link is even uglier in bold, but I think the benefit outweighs this aesthetic failing. Since parts of the annotations are linked, and not all the item subjects are, the blue appearance of links cannot be relied on to help the reader visually identify each subject the way they do in disambiguation pages. Use of boldface in this matter isn't much different from in definition lists, so I'm not seeing obvious reasons not to allow it. -- Paul_012 ( talk) 16:33, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
You are invited to participate in an RfC at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/The Beatles on the issue of capitalising the definite article when mentioning that band's name in running prose. This long-standing dispute is the subject of an open mediation case and we are requesting your help with determining the current community consensus. Thank you for your time. For the mediators. ~ GabeMc ( talk| contribs) 21:36, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Which style should be used for the name of a series of books? Clearly an individual book in the series should be in italics as stated, but it's not clear whether the title of a series should also be in italics or plain (or something else). There's not a lot of consistency - for example The Forsyte Saga mostly uses italics, while Aubrey–Maturin series uses unformatted text. -- David Edgar ( talk) 11:28, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
The <u>...</u>
element was reintroduced in HTML5, and redefined: "represents a span of text offset from its surrounding content without conveying any extra emphasis or importance, and for which the conventional typographic presentation is underlining; for example, a span of text in Chinese that is a proper name (a Chinese proper name mark), or span of text that is known to be misspelled."
The only guideline for underlines is currently at MOS:BADEMPHASIS, which basically state not to use if for emphasis. Should we take another look at this? --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 18:40, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
<u>...</u>
tags".
Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (
talk)
13:36, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
<u>...</u>
isn't supposed to be used simply to stick lines under things if I'm following things correctly, so there's no contradiction there. The guideline is still "don't underline things": I suppose a corollary could be added to the effect that "the <u>...</u>
element can be used to note that text should be offset, as underlining would be used in a book, but don't expect for the text to actually be underlined in user agents"?
Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (
talk)
12:09, 7 January 2013 (UTC)Hello,
you should note that short fiction and novelettes should be put in quotes. Regards.-- Tomcat ( 7) 13:47, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
There is an Rfc at Talk:Wikipedia#RfC: Wikipedia in italics? that may interest you. Please come and read the summary, then include your !vote if you would like to do so. Thank you in advance for your consideration. – PAINE ELLSWORTH CLIMAX! 18:36, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
I know this has probably been discussed before, but it's come up again, and CCC and all that. What are your opinions on italicisation of "Wikipedia"? drewmunn talk 11:42, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
According to the CMOS (16th edition, pp.752–753 14.244–5): "Titles of websites are generally set in Roman without quotation marks and capitalized headline-style ... Specific titles of blogs—which are analogous to periodicals—should be set in italics". Headline-style would not be italicized, so why does the current MOS state:
"Website titles may or may not be italicized depending on the type of site and what kind of content it features. Online magazines, newspapers, and news sites with original content should generally be italicized (Salon.com or The Huffington Post). Online encyclopedias and dictionaries should also be italicized (Scholarpedia or Merriam-Webster Online). Other types of websites should be decided on a case-by-case basis." (emphasis added)
Any thoughts? GabeMc ( talk| contribs) 23:38, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Comment. The general rule is that the names of publications, such as books, journals, magazines, newspapers, and encyclopedias should be italicized; publications of short length, such as articles within a journal, magazine, newspaper or encyclopedia, short stories, and pamphlets should be set off with quote marks. The typographical issue here is what to do with the names of websites, if anything. I would suggest that if the website is the online analog of a hard-copy publication, such as a book, journal, magazine, newspaper, or encyclopedia, then it should be italicized; if the website is not the online analog of a hard-copy publication, then no typographical device should be used. In the latter case, it is just a proper name, and should be capitalized as such. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 01:58, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
|publisher=
BBC News
and thus avoid italicising. On the other side, we have 'National Geographic', which I grew up with as a magazine and I'm happier with italcising it even though it's now an organisation probably much like BBC News. So I feel really weirdly inconsistent about it all. --
Ohc
¡digame!¿que pasa?
15:06, 16 May 2013 (UTC)What kind of website (if any) do you think is not a creative work?
Comment. Chicago and the APA agree on italicizing Encyclopaedia Britannica Online, Wikipedia, and other online reference-work sites. They agree on romanizing nonreference sites that have names like NYTimes.com, Facebook, and IMDb. Otherwise they disagree: APA uses roman where Chicago uses italic.
The new APA Style Guide to Electronic References (2012) romanizes the names of websites and blogs:
But it says that online reference works such as Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary and Wikipedia fall in the category of books, not websites.
Your call: Chicago or APA? -- Dervorguilla ( talk) 06:31, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi, please see
this discussion at WikiProject Military history. We wish to style the † symbol properly, in a way that looks more like the 2nd or 5th example in
- the default sans-serif version (†) usually looks like the 1st example, which has caused problems and raised questions. Please reply there (to keep everything centralized), with suggestions on how to best implement this, and if it is possible to achieve high-percentage reliable styling. (I've not kept up-to-date with CSS over the last few years, but my tests can be seen a few replies down, in the thread). Much thanks. –
Quiddity (
talk)
20:23, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
I generally remove italics from references to Bills and Acts of Parliament when I come across them, because I've not found anything in MOS advocating their use, but they seem to be commonly used in articles. Any legal experts with an opinion either way? [2] says "Court cases are italicized, but acts are not." Dave.Dunford ( talk) 10:10, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
How is it that Baron King of Lothbury is not permissible in use but Baron Stirrup and Baron Walker of Aldringham is permissible in the main body of text in regards to the use of 'bolding'? Nford24 ( Want to have a chat?) 16:28, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi. After much editing in place articles I would like comment and guidance on aspects that I have been correcting based on my reading of Text formatting style, and if there is a consensus as to if what I am doing is correct.
I can often come across a person’s name in the body text (not lede) of an article that is bolded, something like: "the ecclesiastical parish incumbent is The Revd Derick Wormald", or it might be "the primary school head teacher is Mr D Wormald". Always these seem non-notable people with no independent references for personal notability. I have been de-bolding these (but not removing them) by what I am assuming is according to MOSBOLD guidelines. I would like an opinion on whether my de-bolding action here is reasonable, and if there are exceptions that might apply in these cases.
Also in place articles I find and remove italics that are often liberally sprinkled over an article's street and public house names, and religious references, something like "the local public houses are the Blue Ox and the Red Lion" or "the village shop is on the High Street next to the Primary School", or "Someville is part of The Ouse Group of the Deanery of Widnes". I know that italics apply to creative works and ships, and there can be exceptions for emphasis. But would such examples normally fall under the need for emphasis ? Many thanks. Acabashi ( talk) 00:43, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Can someone remove the italics from the Phillip Phillips article? For some reason, even though that's a BLP article of a person, the title is italicized, when it shouldn't be, and I can't find the template in the article that's causing this. Nightscream ( talk) 03:05, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
If we have an article on a magazine with a foreign title, we italicize that title and in the lead put the English translation behind it between parentheses (e.g. La Salamandre (English: The Salamander) is a nature magazine...). My question is, should the English translation be italicized or not? The guideline is not clear about that (or, at least, I couldn't find any clear guidance). Thanks. -- Randykitty ( talk) 08:46, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Added a section on substituting PUA characters so the article can be edited by AWB, and tagging them for tracking. — kwami ( talk) 02:55, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
I would like to add the following text under the Font size section:
The use of reduced fontsize should be used sparingly. In no case should the resulting fontsize drop below 11px (85% on systems using 96 dpi display setting) to avoid illegible text. A common mistake is the use of smaller fontsizes (using {{ small}} or inline CSS) inside infoboxes and navboxes, which already use a smaller fontsize.
Comments? — Edokter ( talk) — 18:20, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
The examples of bad right-to-left formatting now display correctly. Are these work-arounds no longer necessary? Or is this maybe the effect of browser updates? — kwami ( talk) 22:34, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
kwami I agree with Odysseus. The problem is not that AWB can't edit the article is that PUA characters show different in various systems and in most cases show nothing. This is the reason we fix them. The Manual of Style should remain independed of faulty software etc. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 07:53, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
MOS:BOLD#Other uses includes this:
Use boldface ... in a few special cases:
- Table headers and captions
- Description (definition, association) lists (example: Glossary of the American trucking industry and List of Australian inventions)
...
In the first two cases, the appropriate markup automatically adds the boldface formatting; do not use the explicit triple-apostrophe markup.
However List of Australian inventions is a bad example - it does not use appropriate markup described in ( Description (definition, association) lists - it uses the explicit triple-apostrophe markup expressly "forbidden" by MOS. Surely we can find a better example. Mitch Ames ( talk) 14:26, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
At MOS:NUM, there is a discussion over whether we should force numbers to use mixed fonts when uncertainties are involved, to ensure that they line up exactly. Under 'Uncertainty', the MOS currently gives an example with default fonts, but then advises us to use a template that changes this to monospace, though for only part of the number. The question is whether the template should be changed to accommodate the MOS, or if the MOS should be changed to accommodate the template. Currently, there are only 33 articles that have monospace uncertainties, and over 800 that do not (they use a different template), but at least one editor is insisting that the MOS and the other 800+ articles be brought into line with the 33, and discussion has come to a standstill. — kwami ( talk) 02:49, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
1234567890
0987654321
3762891045
9847611199
On the MOS talk page, we're discussing bot-proof hyphens. I think this might be a good place to mention them. Maybe s.t. like the following?
page = 2{{hyphen}}4
— kwami ( talk) 06:46, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
{{
sic|2-4|hide=y}}
should do it, too. Either way, you can include a note: {{sic|2-4|hide=y|reason=This is "chapter 2, page 4" not "pages 2-4".}}
or 2
{{hyphen|reason=This is "chapter 2, page 4" not "pages 2-4".}}
4
if you think people may not understand what you're doing. Anyway, if there's a bot that is still incorrectly "fixing" these hyphens inside {{
sic}}
, it needs to be recoded to stop doing that. Nothing in {{sic}}
should ever be altered by any bot. —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ⚞(Ʌⱷ҅̆⚲͜ⱷ^)≼
04:47, 29 March 2014 (UTC)