Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Text formatting

Double italics implies no italics?

Outside Wikipedia, I'm used to the convention of brief expressions that would normally be italicized in running text (such as a foreign term) being unitalicized to maintain the font style contrast with surrounding text when the brief expression is embedded in a longer section of text which is italicized for other reasons. I wonder if we do this? An example might be (1) a major work title inside a hatnote. (Also, out of curiosity: does anyone know if there's a name for that type of unitalicization?)

Another type of "double" is when two different italicizing criteria listed at MOS:ITALICS both apply to a single expression, for example, both MOS:WAW and MOS:FOREIGNITALIC at the same time. For a RW example, see sentence two at Affiche Rouge (2):

"The term Affiche Rouge also refers more broadly to the circumstances surrounding the poster's creation and distribution..."

Should 'Affiche Rouge' be italicized? The term Affiche Rouge is being treated as a term, therefore MOS:WAW applies and it should be; MOS:FOREIGNITALIC also applies, so does that negate the original italicization criterion, or just confirm it? Another might be (3) a {{Main}} or {{Further}} link (normally italicized) linking an article about a book/major work whose title is normally italicized. Would it matter, if (4) the {{Further}} template had three links, say, and only one of them was a major work (or fulfilled any other italicization criterion) so that two "regular" links would be italicized, but the one book article link would not?

I think I tend towards: 1=no italics, 2=yes, 3=yes/either, 4=no. Mathglot (talk) 01:27, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

About your example: of course Affiche Rouge is to be italicized – if there are two reasons use italics, that doesn't make these reasons go away. (Assuming somebody says to you: "I had two reasons to do it, hence I didn't do it." – Would you consider that person sane?) The classical actual case of "double" italics becoming non-italic are, of course, book titles within book titles, say How The Lord of the Rings Created Modern Fantasy Literature.

As for hatnotes, I'd say it applies if only parts of a note element are to be double-italicized. You can see an example at The Lord of the Rings#Reception, which has a hatnote:

Main article: Literary reception of The Lord of the Rings

On the other hand, I wouldn't un-italicize an article title just because it's rendered in italics itself. For example, the "Context" section of the latter article has a hatnote:

Further information: J. R. R. Tolkien and The Lord of the Rings

One could argue that "The Lord of the Rings" should be un-italicized here, but I don't think that would be particularly helpful (rather it could be confusing). Effectively it means in this context: see our article "The Lord of the Rings", not see the book The Lord of the Rings, so there's no reason for another set of italics. Gawaon (talk) 07:47, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Bolding titles

Hi, I've been told that I shouldn't bold titles however it's not stated in WP:MOS as far as I can see. On List of kingdoms in Africa throughout history, I would like to bold the headings referring to regions (like North Africa, East Africa) to make their superiority to the time periods (Ancient, Post-classical) clearer, particularly in the 'Contents' list.

Also I would like to bold 'List of kingdoms' to denote its importance relative to 'Comparison' and 'History periods', which just offer supplementary information.

Thank you in advance for any help Alexanderkowal (talk) 20:47, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I guess you missed MOS:NOBOLD? Listen to what people tell you, they are right! (In this case, maybe not in others.) Gawaon (talk) 07:47, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Also MOS:FAKEHEADING. Gonnym (talk) 08:14, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

@Gonnym I might be blind but it doesn’t say don’t bold section headings as far as I can see Alexanderkowal (talk) 09:41, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Text formatting#Automatically applied boldface older ≠ wiser 09:47, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

@Bkonradmy bad thank you Alexanderkowal (talk) 09:50, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Exceptions to MOS:FONTFAMILY?

I posted a note referring to MOS:FONTFAMILY at Template talk:Adjacent stations. I would welcome any feedback there. I don't see exceptions to MOS:FONTFAMILY in our guidelines, but I've been around long enough to know that there are sometimes practices that contradict guidelines. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:45, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

MOS:BOLDREDIRECT from a disambiguation page?

So MOS:BOLDREDIRECT already fairly strongly states we should be bolding terms from redirects. Is there any reason this shouldn't apply when coming from a disambiguation page where the target article is about something different than the dab-page link suggests, and is perhaps a link to a subsection? My gut says yes, just wondering if a) I'm right, and b) if we shouldn't add something to this to make it clear it's not just for redirects. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:33, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

It's specified for biographies at MOS:BOLDNICK:

Common nicknames, aliases, and variants are usually given in boldface in the lead, especially if they redirect to the article, or are found on a disambiguation page or hatnote and link from those other names to the article.

—Bagumba (talk) 11:22, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Hmm, good catch. My use wouldn't be in the lead but to a subsection. Specifically looking at Colin Gray → 2024 Apalachee High School shooting § Accused and bolding Colin Gray. I suppose WP:PLA would be a fair reason to bold it just on the general principle of making it easier for the reader to scan the target section and quickly see that they arrived at the right spot? —Locke Cole • t • c 11:47, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

When the redirect term can be reasonably mentioned in the lead, I feel targeting to the top of the article is preferrable, as it provides the reader an accessible overview, instead of being dropped in the middle of a page without context. Readers wanting to skim can use the table of contents to navigate. —Bagumba (talk) 11:52, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

The placement is definitely something up for debate, I was more or less trying to nail down whether or not the name should be bolded wherever the reader ends up after following the dab-page link. —Locke Cole • t • c 14:57, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

"As a rule of thumb, do not italicize words that appear in multiple major English dictionaries."

I'm a little uneasy by this new-ish recommendation. Perhaps In most cases, might be better? The current phrasing is a marked improvement from the previous one, but it is also problematic because dictionaries sometimes include non-English terms that would clearly be unfamiliar to the general reader. The Chicago Manual of Style (18th ed.) rightly notes: [m]ost terms listed in Merriam-Webster will not need italics; however, not all words listed there will be familiar to readers, so editorial discretion may be required.

With regard to words that shouldn't be italicized (CMS lists the examples of croissant, banh mi, pasha, Weltanschauung, kaiser, obscure, recherché, bourgeoisie, telenovela, anime, eros, agape, and mise en scène), they all follow this criterion well. However, some words that should be italicized also fit this criterion.

I just think the recommendation should allow for more discretion over what words should be italicized. Words like épater le bourgeois (Merriam-Webster), Gastarbeiter (OED, Collins), Gleichschaltung (OED, Collins, Merriam-Webster), hygge (Merriam-Webster, Cambridge, OED), etc. are all listed in major English dictionaries, but I think not italicizing these words would go against the purpose of italicization, which is to provide additional context to terms that are likely unfamiliar to the reader. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 16:36, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

References

I have no opinion on the bulk of your post. But, umm, not so new...

The first instance of the recommendation that I found in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Text formatting was added at this edit 25 September 2006.

"If looking for a good rule of thumb, do not italicize words that appear in an English language dictionary."

But, that text came from Wikipedia:Manual of Style. The earliest version of the recommendation that I found in Wikipedia:Manual of Style was added at this edit 13 April 2005. Yeah, 19 years ago, so not so new.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 19:54, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Huh, I guess the do not italicize words that appear unitalicized in multiple major English dictionaries recommendation was the new one. Not quite sure when that got added, but I'm glad that's not the recommendation anymore. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 20:53, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Color compatibility for dark mode

MOS:NAVBOXCOLOR allows navboxes to have "on-brand" color for their subjects, such as the colors of a team, university, or country. Since this guideline was written, dark mode has become much more widely used. What should happen to accommodate this, and most importantly, to prevent unreadably low contrast between text and background color? Should all the colors in such templates be forced to the "on brand" colors even in dark mode, or should we switch these templates to the standard colors which smoothly transition to dark mode? Another possibility is to allow the "on-brand" colors to be inverted; though this will be readable, it will not be "on-brand" and often ends up rather ugly. -- Beland (talk) 23:18, 12 September 2024 (UTC)