Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Text formatting/Archive 3

• Chatz is right. It is bad form to use bold typeface to show emphasis. That is the opinion of this and just about every other style guide. Boldface is very abrupt and distracting, and should be used sparingly. I really don't understand the notion implicit in the title of this section that somehow it being quoted speech matters. I don't understand where that notion came from, but it is flat wrong. -Rrius (talk) 23:06, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Something's wrong here, because I responded to Ckatz's post here before you did, yet there's no sign of it, not in the edit history for this page or my own "My Contributions" list. Let me recap: I have no idea what his "word choice" opening is about, other than the suspicion he is just trying to throw up a smoke screen to keep this from being resolved on its own merits, i.e., not his way. For him to suggest on the linked-in article talk page that if I disagree with the guideline (which I wasn't there) I should do so here, then follow me here to belittle me for doing so is uncivil and lacking in good faith. So is his claim that I "refuse" to provide proof, when I had stated to him there and again here that the Manual of Style doesn't cover the sort of situation at hand, that proof one way or the other simply doesn't exist. This was an absolutely unethical and unacceptable misrepresentation of the facts on his part.

"...flat wrong." Why? Because you say so? The fact of the matter is that it is a different type of situation than anything indicated in the guidelines. Here we are dealing with recorded speech that isn't going to be performed again, unlike a stage play that can be "revived." No differing interpretations on how it might be read, none relevant to this article anyway. Everything in the Wiki guidelines, and not just the examples but the described applications, is about quoting text. But never mind that, as the real question here is whether italics or boldface should be used for emphasis. You are wrong about "every other style guide." I was consistently taught in Language/English/Composition classes that italics are for titles and boldface is for emphasis. Period. I again point out that simple examination of this thread and that on the linked-in article talk page will show that italics do not give emphasis but get lost in the text. Your claim that "boldface is very abrupt and distracting" is absurd. The purpose of "emphasis" is to make the word stand out and be specifically noticed, to distract the reader from the regular flow of the reading. Besides, read this, from Funk & Wagnall's Desk Dictionary:

"emphasis: 1. Special significance or importance assigned to something. 2. Stress given by voice or rhetorical contrivance to a particular syllable, word or phrase. 3. Force or intensity of meaning, action, etc."

I defy you to look over this thread and the one at the aforementioned link and say that the italicized words have that, and that the boldfaced ones have anything else. Understand what is under discussion here is an actual effect, so arbitrary proclamations are irrelevant. --Tbrittreid (talk) 23:09, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

There's no "belittling" at all. By "word choice", I merely meant that the actual words to be highlighted are irrelevant to this discussion, the subject at hand being specifically whether to use italics or boldface to do the highlighting. Once that is resolved, you can highlight as few or as many words as you see fit. As for the rest of your post, you still have not established any convention on Wikipedia that would support using boldface. Even if one accepts your assertion that the guidelines do not cover this (and I don't), it is a stretch to presume that the numerous entries indicating that we are not to use boldface for emphasis would somehow not apply in a new case. You are insisting that you can use bold in the absence of a directive not to; I am saying that you need to get that guidance first, in light of the crystal-clear directives against using it in related situations. --Ckatz^chat_spy 23:57, 18 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)

To Ckatz—the belittling was in your, "...this is a silly thing to argue about...." You still have failed to justify your "word choice" discussion as anything but a distraction from the actual point. "...I meant that the actual words to be highlighted are irrelevant to this discussion...." Then why mention that at all? I damned well hadn't said a thing about it in the post you were following up on. With this you essentially admit to trying to distract us from the actual point.

To Rrius—by ignoring my explanation that arbitrary proclamations are irrelevant, that we are talking about creating a visual effect in the text that italics utterly fail to do—at least in Wikipedia's font—you indicate an unwillingness to be fair and impartial in this discussion.

As for Ckatz's insistence that I need to show something in the guidelines that actively supports using boldface there, let me make this clearer than I admittedly have done before: I have dropped that specific dispute in favor of pointing out the fact that italics simply and utterly fail to lend emphasis in Wikipedia text at all and the Wiki guideline needs to be changed in general. Outside style guides to the contrary—and I repeat that all my classes taught exactly the opposite of your claim here anyway—are irrelevant because emphasis either exists or it does not, and with the italicization of isolated words or short phrases in running Wikipedia text it does not exist. Period. It cannot be merely asserted that italics give emphasis when any objective and honest examination of the evidence will show that it does not, not here. Ignore the most important points in this post and make irrelevant generalizations at your own peril. --Tbrittreid (talk) 20:49, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Let me guess—because it's clear that you won't be allowed to get away with anything that's less than genuinely valid and can't think of any defense of your position which is that, rather than have that happen to you again or admit that you're wrong you're just not going to say anything at all? --Tbrittreid (talk) 21:26, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Fowler, A Dictionary of Modern English Usage, 2nd ed., revised by Gowers, 1965, p.313, says that one of the proper uses of italics is, "If the sentence were being spoken, there would be a stress on this word." Ozob (talk) 04:09, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

That's just idiotic. I never said I was here to be fair or impartial. Style guides exist for a reason. Boldface is unattractive and less effective at emphasis than italics. You have yet to make an important point, so there has been none to ignore. If you don't like my opinion, I don't care, but you should take note of the fact that so far both people who have waded into your dispute with Ckatz have taken his side. It might help if you could manage to summarize your position in a few words because your statements above are long, unattractively formatted, and just plain boring. -Rrius (talk) 00:31, 22 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)

You seem to be the only one to think that italics don't work here. That is patently ridiculous as evidenced by the fact that the existing MOS is against you. What's more, you were wrong in your earlier post; emphasis is not supposed to stop you in your tracks, it is supposed to call attention. -Rrius (talk) 00:34, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Do I "seem to be the only one to think that italics don't work here"? Not one soul has asserted otherwise. I deny that "the entire MOS is against me." Much of it has nothing to do with this, and it is entirely hypothetical, making your claim rubbish if you'd phrased it reasonably. Furthermore, I also deny claiming that the point of emphasis was to "stop you in your tracks," I deny that boldface does this, and I repeat that my point is that in Wikipedia's font italics do not "call attention" but are lost in the text. The facts that you did not deal with that contention at all until four days after I first made it—and re-made it in terms that ignoring it further would have to have been held against you—and that you still don't actually deny seeing the text that way, are evidence that you don't believe otherwise yourself. --Tbrittreid (talk) 01:18, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I haven't been on WP much the last few days and this page wasn't in my watchlist the few times I was on, so that argument is baseless. It was silly for you to have ever made it to be frank. Your first two sentences just make no sense. Either you are saying that you never said italics don't work here or you are saying no one has disputed that. If your contribution of 23:34 UTC on 21 November doesn't say that, then you were unclear there. If, on the other hand, you do not see how the other three people have informed you that your position is wrong, then you can't read. That interpretation is backed up by your misquoting me. I said "the existing MOS", not "the entire MOS". As a result, your entire argument based on that is also garbage. I'm not sure what you are saying I'm ignoring because you haven't made a whole lot of sense to this point.

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)

To begin with your reference to my "attacking" you, you get what you earn, or to echo Thomas Jefferson: It's true whether I say so or not, I might as well say so; "might as well" is an understatement, as your poor behavior is a central problem here, keeping this issue from being resolved on its own merits. I deny that my previous post which you diff-linked in is at all incomprehensible (other than my unintentionally leaving out the word "than" between "less" and "genuinely valid" where my intent should have been quite clear anyway, and which I have now inserted for any late comers). I have repeatedly said—and explained why—in no uncertain terms that outside style guides are irrelevant (you must understand they were not written with this particular font in mind), so your suggestion that you think that I am asking for citations of such can be nothing less than a bald-faced lie (again, it's true whether I say so or not...). I have validly defended my position several times, which is more than can be said of you. Furthermore, you today have inserted a post between Ozob's only one here and my response to it from some time back, which is completely lacking in rationality, and was presumably so located in the hope that I wouldn't see it. Tough luck, I did. For example: If you are not here "to be fair and impartial," you shouldn't be here at all, because that is precisely what is called for, a fair and impartial response to my request for a change to the guidelines based on the actual reality of the situation, not a defense of Ckatz based on bias (what other alternative is there?). That was an absolutely indefensible thing to say (Jefferson one more time). It is now abundantly clear that you will not be reasonable about this issue. I did indeed indicate that there would be consequences to ignoring points and making irrelevant generalizations, and there will be, especially since you have now gone beyond that. If you aren't familiar enough with Wiki procedures to realize what I refer to, that's not my fault. --Tbrittreid (talk) 23:59, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Clearly there is no point in bothering with you. You ignore the force of outside style guides, you ignore this one, you ignore arguments against the use of bold for emphasis. It is clear that the only argument you would ever recognise as valid is one you've made. You are wrong; authority says you're wrong, aesthetics say you're wrong, but you won't hear any of it. It is tempting to say some terribly nasty things about trying to talk with people like you, but I will simply say that any attempt at discussion with you is worthless. You needn't bother responding as I won't bother reading what you write. -Rrius (talk) 00:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that the consensus here is against boldface and for italics. Ozob (talk) 03:04, 23 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)

Is this something we actually need to codify? I agree that we should discourage using a larger font for emphasis, but if it's not an issue, then maybe we can avoid cluttering the MoS. Ozob (talk) 23:52, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's an issue with an editor I am disagreeing with, which is why I came looking here. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 00:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Some anon just helped you out. I'll back you up too if you need it. Ozob (talk) 01:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I saw that somewhat odd edit; it wasn't me! I'm not sure I would say "never". Many wikitables use a 90% or 95% font size for space reasons, and certainly the standard {{infobox}} uses the font-size style (at 88%). — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 01:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, I touched it up some. I don't really like the style of the section (I'm not comfortable with "never" either), but I'm not really sure how to make it better at the moment. Maybe something will come to me, or maybe someone else will have some inspiration. Ozob (talk) 02:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Can strike text be used in the article? I don't see a section about that here.—

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)

Hmmm. That's a fascinating question, and I can't find an elegant solution. Two things I can think of are (1) use an HTML comment to break up the text for the parser (horrible ugly kludge), or (2) use HTML tags for bold/italics in these cases (ugly sore thumb non-wikiness). To wit:

… content of ''Nature''<!-- -->'s editorials … 

renders as

… content of Nature's editorials …

and

… content of <i>Nature</i>'s editorials … 

renders as

… content of Nature's editorials …

But again, both are ugly. Personally, I find the second method slightly less ugly, but YMMV. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 04:15, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

There are two things you can do here. One is to insert a space. This may cause an undesirable space. (Ooh. Bet you didn't see that coming.) The other is to use <nowiki> tags. That is:

He takes direct editorial responsibility for the content of Nature's editorials, writing some of them. Philip Campbell is Nature's seventh Editor-in-Chief since the journal was launched in 1869.

Tada! Ozob (talk) 04:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

You can use the apostrophe template, {{

-

}}:

content of ''Nature''{{'}}s editorials

... which renders as

content of Nature's editorials

Or you could let the trailing be italic, couldn't you?

— John Cardinal (talk) 14:31, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Letting the trailing characters be italic suggests that the journal is actually called Nature's, which is wrong. Ozob (talk) 14:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think many (any?) reader's would make that mistake, but whatever... — John Cardinal (talk) 15:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, I don't really think it's that big a deal, either, but I do think it's worth trying to make our articles as correct as we can. • That's for pointing out {{

wikitext. It would be nice if there was a MediaWiki feature to cleanly escape the apostrophe. For example, … 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)

Thanks for the replies, guys. I went with the <i>italic text</i> solution. This still seems like an annoying bug, though, which almost certainly occurs in other articles - I wonder if it's worth filing a bug report over... Robofish (talk) 01:43, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

←←Outdent←←

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

This topic is under discussion again at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines‎#Bolding of cast sections. The film project's MOS has for some time read "Pertinent casting information might also be included in this section (or in production), and only then should bolding be used to make the credits stand out from the additional information", and it is currently under discussion as to whether or not this contradicts MOS:BOLD or is a "special case" (using the terminology from this page). Interested editors are invited to comment in the linked discussion. More opinions from MOS-watchers would certainly be welcome. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:22, 6 March 2010 (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)

According to "Allowable typographical changes" under

MOS:QUOTE, we should "generally preserve bold and italics". PL290 (talk

)

Disregard the previous message, answer found:

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (titles)#Quotation marks. jonkerz♠

18:24, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

'Wikimarkup automatically emboldens section titles, table headers, definitions and some parts of{{citation}}s.'

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

Hmm, yes then that example does not seem consistent with the MoS, however I think each article's author is free to use editorial judgement when it comes to a particular style for that article, and it probably isn't worth nit-picking about. The rule is repeated again at

WT:Manual of Style (titles) and/or this page's archives, if you're willing to do some digging. -- œ^™

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.

I see the preceding section,

MOS:BOLD#Other_uses, allows bold in table headers, as one of a handful of specific exceptions. Personally I think that's sensible, and it would be preferable to find an alternative scheme for distinguishing things within the table and keep bold for headers only. PL290 (talk

) 12:46, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I see that, as well. But your answer to the question immediately above this one points out that

WP:TABLE says little other than don't use tables unless you really have to, I was wondering if the use of boldface in table cells, specifically as a way of highlighting occasional cells in a long (often several screens long) table, as opposed to in article text, has ever actually been considered. cheers, Struway2 (talk

) 13:07, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a specific table in mind? Is it the list you linked above? I think it's too busy: I'd get rid of the bolding on the seasons, the bolding to indicate division changes, the coloring to indicate promotion and relegation, and the coloring to indicate winners and runners-up. I think there are too many rules, but I'm not sure which ones to get rid of. (Maybe all of them?) I realize that this gets rid of almost all the formatting and leaves the table much plainer. That's intentional. Right now I think the visual effects get in the way of presenting the data. Ozob (talk) 23:25, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't have a specific list in mind. The one linked was just an example, which follows a consensus format used in nearly 20 featured lists, so I'm not about to change it on aesthetic grounds :-) Think you might find that removing all visual cues would also get in the way of presenting the data. The question was purely to establish whether the MoS now definitely excludes boldface as an acceptable means of highlighting a table cell. If so, the general format of lists of the same type as the above would have to change, but it's a more general question than that. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 06:48, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, I think the answer is no, boldface isn't definitely excluded. I'm not convinced there are situations where it looks good—I admit that I'm a fan of very plain, very simple layouts, maybe too much of a fan!—but if consensus on a certain article is that the boldface is effective, then I'd say go for it. Ozob (talk) 14:06, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Since this has been dormant for four months, there seems to be consensus, I'll be bold and add emphasis in tables as an exception. Sandman888 (talk) 14:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

There is no consensus here. Just because no one watches and edits this page doesn't mean that no objection in a month means no-one would actually object. PL290 says "keep bold for headers only". Struway and Ozob were discussing the merits of boldface and the later even said "I'm not convinced there are situations where [boldface]. looks good". No-one even proposed the addition to MOS until you came along. You were

Wikipedia:Accessibility#Text says screen readers don't interpret bold so it is not eligible as an alternative way of indicating something that might be coloured. Rambo's Revenge (talk)

17:54, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Look italics is being used and suggested as an alternative because of MOS#BOLD but it is equally listed as "non-readable" if that's even what the page is saying. Sandman888 (talk) 18:40, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

So pursue that then, not un-supported change that no-one has agreed to and doesn't comply with

WP:ACCESS. Rambo's Revenge (talk)

11:51, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

No I am pointing out your inconsistent interpretation of wp:access. This is agreed to by the above discussion, but not you, well consensus isn't unanimous. Sandman888 (talk) 08:54, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Concerning the accessibility issue: it is true that screen readers don't interpret bold. However, in tables, they do interpret tables headers and table captions. So if the bold is a result of making table headers, it is perfectly fine.

Now if there is bold in the content of the table (not headers nor table captions), that is meant to be a semantic emphasis, it is an accessibility issue. In this case, {{strong}} should be used instead of bold. Yours, Dodoïste (talk) 16:08, 7 November 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)

I don't think it needs to be italicized because it's part of a title of an external work, hence the quotation marks. You should leave it as the citation template formats it. But if your editorial preference is to italicize it anyway for the sake of consistency or whatever else, then you could use the |work= parameter in conjunction with |title= so it will come out like so:

Harris, Craig (1999-07-21). "IGN: Review". Super Mario Bros. Deluxe. IGN. Retrieved 2008-04-23.

-- œ^™ 15:45, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

At present there is an objection at

Most uses of {{infobox}} have the same table captions, and bold tables captions are used since 2006 (albeit not frequently in the articles content). So I believe table captions are an exception to the bold face guidelines. Just my opinion though. Yours, Dodoïste (talk) 17:22, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

If that's the community norms then that's the norm. No objection here to amending the guideline. -- œ^™ 18:11, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Rather than wait an indeterminate amount of time, I'll go ahead and "boldly" add the exception. At the very least, it can be reverted and discussed. --RexxS (talk) 16:26, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Just for the record: The bold caption is an intentional layout make especially for wikitables, defined by developers at http://bits.wikimedia.org/skins-1.5/common/shared.css?283-5. It is used with consistency across all Wikimedia Projects. Dodoïste (talk) 21:04, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you're quite right, and I've amended my comment to reflect that. --RexxS (talk) 22:48, 7 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)

This probably isn't a good idea since they also have an album named Even. Kaldari (talk) 21:53, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Just call them "the band" in sentences where confusion would otherwise be possible... --A. di M. (talk) 12:28, 24 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)

I believe the modules should be italicized, as they are technically released as books. A short story is something that would be released inside of another publication, like a magazine or a compilation book with an editor. However, this would mean that an adventure published in a magazine, like Dungeon, for example, would have quotes instead of italics. I think the important distinction is whether the title is the title of the entire published work. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 16:20, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

As an aside, there was a similar thread recently at

Talk:Dungeons & Dragons/Archives/ 8#Italicized game name. 129.33.19.254 (talk

) 16:29, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

In which case, it is merely a case of updating each project's style guide so that it is clear which are and are not to be italicised. As far as I am concerned the game Dungeons and Dragons was a series of books: the Monster manual, Players guide etc. which were necessary for the game, and as such should be in italics and so the game itself. I am not sure about an individual module, though many of them are fairly substantial, I was counting them as more equal to a TV series episodes, which are not italicised. Chaosdruid (talk) 18:47, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

That's a fair point about the episodic quality. I think the guidelines

here, when taken together, would favor italics. The first includes the term pamphlets; modules are more substantial than that. The second says "series of books", which I think modules qualify as. The second link also says of quotation marks: "It particularly applies to works that exist as a smaller part of a larger work." Since each module is its own work, I'd say no quotation marks. —Torchiest ^talk_edits

19:41, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

For the D&D series of modules, the List of Dungeons & Dragons modules has them listed as separate series, which I took to mean that most are episodes of those series. Indeed after just clicking one at random it tells me that it is a 32 page booklet Ghost of Lion Castle. I would say that these sort of things need to be discussed within the individual projects though, as that is where the style guides are made. Here I am just trying to establish the procedure for determination within projects and to see if there should be any additions to cover the broader aspects. FOr example is a boardgame he equivalent of a computer game (which are italicised). Chaosdruid (talk) 10:35, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Someone had used wiki mark up to generate the font now.com in

Old related discussion: /Archive 1#Typefaces

I agree it was the right thing to do. I prefer to avoid

MOS:ITALICS or quotes for emphasis of computer text. An exception might be to precisely show a string of ASCII

symbols that wouldn’t be clear in the normal typeface, but domain names and URLs are clear enough in ordinary or italic type.

Anyhow, the issue should be mentioned in the MOS, even (or especially!) if everyone dislikes my style. Vadmium (talk) 03:34, 29 March 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. -- machᵗᵃˡᵏ 10:10, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Down to 55 now! Kaldari (talk) 21:37, 22 April 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