Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Text formatting

Italics for English words in a side box

There are plans to enhance {{wiktionary}} per a discussion here. An example of current behavior is shown in the box at the right.

The side box currently shows the three links (English, Russian and Japanese) in bold italics. How should they be formatted? The discussion at Italics for English words is stuck with one view being that MOS restricts italics to foreign words, while another favors italics per words-as-words and consistency. Thoughts needed. Johnuniq (talk) 07:48, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Hint: "MOS restricts italics to foreign words" is obviously nonsense. However, example shown to the left is wrong for another reason: don't italicize material that is not Latin-based script.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:01, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

We do not

We do not in fact routinely italicize titles of articles about words. Red Slash 17:49, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I assume this is about my reversion of your addition? My main reason for doing so was that I thought it was outside the scope of this page, rather than because I disagreed with the content. (For those missing the context here, there's an ongoing thread at Wikipedia talk:Article titles about whether to italicize titles of articles about words-as-words.) Colin M (talk) 17:00, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Italics as a note

Is the usage of italics found at Beyond: Two Souls#Plot correct per the MoS? And if it isn't, how should this be set? --Gonnym (talk) 14:14, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Arguably in line with § Uses of italics that are specific to Wikipedia: One-line notes may also be placed at the top of sections to cross-reference or point to additional information that is not directly linked in the text. Both of these are in italics and indented to distinguish them from the text of the article proper. Even if the note isn't exactly a cross-reference or additional information, I'd say it's at least a "self-reference... not part of the article content proper" (per the last paragraph of that section). I think it's good the way it is. Colin M (talk) 21:16, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Actually, after looking at {{Selfref}} and seeing some of its transclusions, I'm not so sure this should count as a self-reference, at least as it's defined in that template. I still feel like removing the italics/indent would make it marginally less clear, but I'm not seeing support for it in the MoS. Colin M (talk) 23:00, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Yeah {{Selfref}} uses {{hatnote}} and that follows MOS:HATNOTE which does give this style as a valid example. --Gonnym (talk) 10:12, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

This note strikes me as unnecessary. The general reader won't know the difference (unless pointed out elsewhere as it perhaps should be in the design section) and we don't write for the non-general reader. The editor confused by it could perhaps get an edit comment to save you from all the usually-less-than-innocent changers. --Izno (talk) 21:35, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Going to take the opposite view on this – as MOS:PLOT says "Works that incorporate non-linear storytelling elements [...] may require inclusion of out-of-universe language to describe how the work is presented to the reader or viewer". If for example I read the plot for Memento without any explanation, and then saw the film, I would wonder what was going on. I'd agree with Colin M that the italic formatting does seem non-standard, but that it helps the reader. ‑‑Yodin^T 12:38, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

I saw Memento five times and I still didn't know what was going on. EEng 02:58, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

If it's a "Wikipedia talking to the editor" annotation, then it's a self-ref, and should be italicized, since that's the style we use for those ({{Hatnote}} and its relatives). If its not something that should be a hatnote, then use {{Cross-reference}}. It has parameters for printworthy and not printworthy (default is non-printworthy). If the cross-ref is to another page from mainspace, it's not printworthy; if it's to another point on the same page, it is printworthy. Our articles are supposed to be able to stand on their own as content, per WP:REUSE. The {{Selfref}} template shouldn't be used for such cross-references in mainspace, and has a more specialized function. Anyway, in the case in point at Beyond: Two Souls#Plot, it's not a cross-reference but editorial commentary to the reader, and belongs in {{Hatnote}}.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:14, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Italicizing titles within titles in citations?

This one's been bugging me for a while and I've had a hard time finding anything definitive about it in the Wikipedia Manual of Style. My question is, should we italicize the titles of major works (books and movies) within the titles of minor works (articles and chapters) in the "cite web/news/books" templates? Here are two examples:

1. Sherman, Jennifer (December 2, 2019). "Promare, Okko's Inn, Weathering With You Anime Films Nominated for Annie Awards". Anime News Network. Retrieved December 3, 2019.
2. Sherman, Jennifer (December 2, 2019). "Promare, Okko's Inn, Weathering With You Anime Films Nominated for Annie Awards". Anime News Network. Retrieved December 3, 2019.

My common sense says they should be italicized, and apparently, the MLA Style Guide states that titles within titles should be italicized, too. The Anime News Network article I cited also italicizes the various titles within its title (visible on the website's news feed). However, MOS:QUOTETITLE seems to take issue with "additional markups" for titles in double quotation marks, such as boldface (and presumably italics). Or did I read that section incorrectly? I find its wording to be a bit confusing, to be honest.

I'd appreciate any additional input, as well as a fresh pair of eyes to read the MOS since my brain's fried at the moment. Thanks in advance! – KuroMina (talk) 02:47, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Those titles should be in italics; #1 is correct. How to deal with a major work in the title of another major work is less clear; I've seen single quotation marks and partly unitalicised solutions: "Last, First (year). Commentary on Shakespeare's 'Othello'." and "Last, First (year). Commentary on Shakespeare's Othello." and of course completely unadorned: "Last, First (year). Commentary on Shakespeare's Othello." -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:06, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

We have a style thing somewhere or another in the WP:MOS pages that directs us to regularize to our style (even in citations following a non-external format), but I can't remember the shortcut. I've had dashes tweaked on me before I found it subsequently; italics are not that far. --Izno (talk) 13:21, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

@Michael Bednarek: Thanks. :) That's what I figured, but I just wanted to be sure; I've noticed that many Wikipedia articles do not italicize the titles of major works within the titles of minor works in citations, despite the rest of the article being properly formatted, so I worried that I might have overlooked a rule. Perhaps someone can add something to the MOS about this for future reference. – KuroMina (talk) 11:59, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

The typography for title of major works in quoted material is explicitly mentioned at MOS:CONFORM. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:06, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

@Michael Bednarek: This is exactly what I was looking for (yet somehow overlooked, whoops). Thank you! – KuroMina (talk) 12:42, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, italicize them. We've been over this many times at WT:CS1, WT:CITE, etc. I'm pretty sure this is already covered in the citation template documentation. Per MOS:CONFORM, it's also good to convert other approaches to our approach; e.g. if the website used 'Promare', 'Okko's Inn', 'Weathering With You' Anime Films Nominated for Annie Awards, on WP use |title=''Promare'', ''Okko's Inn'', ''Weathering with You'' Anime Films Nominated for Annie Awards (same goes for boldface, ALL-CAPS, or some other approach used for titles at some random site/publication).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:05, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Mixing italics and roman

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Moved to WT:Manual of Style#Mixing italics and roman

Please do not open duplicate threads, per WP:TALKFORK, WP:MULTI.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:49, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

---

Pluralizing or possessiv…izing an italicized word leads to mixed formatting, as In Othello's first act…. I've seen some style guides recommend rewriting to avoid this, but can't find anything in our own. Do we care? —151.132.206.250 (talk) 16:04, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Italicizing horses' names

Horses often have peculiar names, and in some cases are named after common names of cities, people, animals, etc. For example Ulysses S. Grant had several horses named Cincinnati and Jeff Davis and Fox, which sometimes may be confusing when these names are used in a sentence unless they are italicized.  e.g.Grant received Cincinnati during the Civil War.   As both ships and horses are modes of transportation, it would seem italicizing horses names would also be permissible. I'm wondering if there's any set policy that prohibits this. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:41, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Since the style guide of American Horse Publications ("Promoting excellence in equine media") says to italicize Titles of books, magazines, newspapers, plays, movies, long musical compositions, long poems, and names of trains, planes, and ships, I'd say the answer to your question is no. EEng 02:36, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Gwillhickers it seems like a good styleguide rule! Do any existing style guides use this though? ‑‑Yodin^T 13:14, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Well in addition to my post above we have The Inland Printer (a trade magazine, 1901): "Italicizing used to be almost universal in the case of names of dramatic characters and of vessels, and even horses' names used to be printed in italics, but the practice seems to have been nearly dropped at least as to horses ..." EEng 14:21, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

As in the above example, it would seem italicizing the name Cincinnati would let the reader know that we are referring to something other than the city of Cincinnati, which is never italicized. Seems there is more benefits than not by employing this practice. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:03, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

We could also put horse's names in green small caps, and names of planets bold, and any number of things. Sometimes there are conflicting practices (e.g. spelling variations) out in the real world, and in such cases we have to find a way to choose among them or otherwise navigate the conflict. What we never do is make up conventions no one else uses. This is a nonstarter. EEng 23:25, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Green and bold lettering in the main text are specifically prohibited. We would not be making up a convention, but only extending an existing one, and not in any sort of radical manner. WP policies and guidelines are sometimes modified when there is a good reason to do so. Ship's names and some aircraft, all modes of transportation, are italicized with good reason. Those reasons easily apply to horses' names, imo. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:49, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

But we could, if we wanted, change our guidelines to allow bold in the case of planet names, but we're not going to because no one would understand what we're doing, just like we could, if we wanted, change the guidelines to allow italics in the case of horse names, but we're not going to because no one would understand what we're doing. Ship names are italicized because everyone italicizes ship names; aircraft names are sometimes italicized because people sometimes italicize aircraft names; horse names are not italicized because no one italicizes horse names (or dog names, or people names, or parakeet names). Extending an existing convention is making up a convention, and will do nothing but puzzle our readers. This sounds like a job for SMcCandlish. Brace yourself. EEng 00:20, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

The Amphicar (no italics): an "improvement" on the automobile? You decide!

-EEng
See also car-boat. --Trovatore (talk) 04:30, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Improving on the automobile is not inventing the automobile. Same with existing conventions. Italicization is generally used in the academic world for names and titles, and would be received as such if used for horses' names. The notion that no one will understand is not very compelling. The assumption that if we italicize names of horses, modes of transportation, we must do it with parrots, dogs, etc. doesn't carry far because that same argument could be said of italicizing ship's names. e.g.If we do it with ships we should do it with cars, buses, trains, etc. So far I'm not seeing much of a reason not to do it with horses, other than the claim that no one will understand.    I don't suspect there will be much support for this as in my experience, editors are generally resistant to change. No biggie. I can live with things as they are. Brace myself?  Why?  Is Atila the Editor about to attack? :-)   —- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:06, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

You're misrepresenting my arguments, but that's OK; I think it's time we wait for other editors to opine. And yes, if you haven't seen Atila the Editor (no italics) in action you're in for a treat. Atila, do your stuff. EEng 02:13, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Never pass up a good excuse to reference Monty Python [1].  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:47, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Animal proper names are never italicized, just like people. Book titles or ships are, but they are inanimate objects. Lassie is a great example. The television show name is, the actual dog is not. Similarly, the name for the human species is, our names are not. Montanabw^(talk) 18:45, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

EENG — Comparing my suggestion to italicize horses' names as an invention, and then comparing it to an "Amphicar", aside from it being hazing, is the only misrepresentation around here. Italiics are used for some names and titles - I wasn't trying to introduce the square wheel. Also, at this point I really don't appreciate you baiting or wooing another editor to come in such a manner where you feel I should brace myself. This is just a simple discussion about use of italics, not a contest, and honest debate is welcomed. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:12, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Try taking life less seriously. EEng 22:11, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Well, perhaps I misread your intentions, and since this is the Christmas season, okay. But after New Years is over, I expect that serious consideration will be given to the square wheel -- it works great here on our flat earth. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:00, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Montanabw — My suggestion was that, aside from people, we simply italicize things that are given names. Ships, some aircraft, horses are given names. Automobiles, trains, etc are not. Yes, Lassie is not italicized, but I suspect it has been in some text, just for the sake of discussion. Again, I can see there's no support for my suggestion but at the same time I can live with the existing convention. Thanks for your thoughts everyone. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:12, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. There is nothing magically special about horses, nor domesticated animals more broadly. We have more articles on notable horses than any others, with dogs a distant second, and these articles do not put the animals' names in italics, quotation marks, or any other special markup (except where some drive-by editor has done it here and there and no one else has noticed and reverted it). Our standard at WP is to not apply a stylization unless the vast majority of topically independent reliable sources also apply that style with near uniformity; certainly not the case with italicization of horse names. The very fact that the names are sometimes strange helps distinguish them as names in the first place. In cases of potential ambiguity or confusion, just write to be extra-clear (at least at first occurrence). This is really the same "issue" as every other case of ambiguity, such as common names of species that sound like descriptions rather than species names (e.g. red salamander). Just put your thinking cap on (WP:Common sense): "the red salamander species (Pseudotriton ruber)", "her racehorse, named Insert Something Funny Here, won the ...", and so on. EEng is of course correct that trying to extend real-world conventions, like italicization of book titles and ship names, to something new is just making up a fake "convention" that will mean nothing to anyone but its inventor and will be confusing to readers while making WP's output look more sloppy and amateurish. Gwillhickers (who seems to have retracted the idea but who has made what seem to be behavioral accusation that need to be addressed) said it all right here: "My suggestion was that, aside from people, we simply italicize things that are given names." Yes, and that's a very strange idea that no one in the world implements; this is what people were pointing out to you, and you were taking offense. Opposition to the idea wasn't "hazing", it was editorial disagreement with a proposal to radically change a stable guideline to call for something at odds with standard English writing practices, at high cost to WPs comprehensibility and probably its reputation. So, no, your arguments were not being misrepresented. PS: EEng, thanks for citing The Inland Printer. It's one of my favorites, along with The Studio, for publishing and thereby preserving a lot of the best examples of Art Nouveau illustrations and adornments, up until Art Deco supplanted it. Even some of the advertising was gorgeous.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:47, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Hebrew doesn't use italics

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Text formatting#Foreign terms includes "However, titles of major works that should be italicized are italicized in scripts that support that feature (including Latin, Greek, Cyrillic, and Hebrew)...." Among Ancient Hebrew, Modern Hebrew, and all versions between, italics are not used. Hebrew texts do not use an italic Hebrew font for emphasis, names and titles (including titles of "major works"), words as words, foreign terms, scientific names, or variables. There is no proper use for Hebrew italics, except as an unusual font style. I strongly recommend removing Hebrew from the above list. —Anomalocaris (talk) 04:19, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Italicizing yaoi

Could use more opinions at Talk:Yaoi#Italicizing. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 21:51, 11 May 2020 (UTC)