Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Text formatting

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Manual of Style
WikiProject icon This page falls within the scope of WikiProject Manual of Style, a drive to identify and address contradictions and redundancies, improve language, and coordinate the pages that form the MoS guidelines.
 

Boldface as stylisation of company name[edit]

See pmdtechnologies, where an editor with possible COI has written it as "pmdtechnologies" whenever the company name occurs throughout the article. Presumably this is the company's preferred format. I've removed bold from the article display title: should the bolding be removed in the article text? PamD 14:34, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes. For reference, see WP:TRADEMARK. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 15:57, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Agreed; following WP:TRADEMARK's MOS:TMRULES#Trademarks that begin with a lowercase letter, it should be stylised as "Pmdtechnologies". ‑‑mjgilsonT 16:03, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
in the intro, use it once with textual explanation of "stylized as pmdtechnologies" , but not thereafter. We are not here to promote vanity typeface usage. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:51, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Exactly as TheRedPenOfDoom says. (And the article should be moved to PMD Technologies, or maybe PMDTechnologies if all RS really do elide the space, which I doubt; RM now open here.) Why do people keep asking this? I don't mean that to pick on PamD, I mean it literally: What is the failure point in the guidelines, such that after over a decade of MoS being seemingly clear about this, in more than one place, that the message is somehow not being understood? We have to revisit this "should I bold/italicize/all-cap/small-cap this trademark to match the logo?" question every other day, if not here then at RM. My thought is that it is because WP:COMMONNAME doesn't say explicitly that it's about what the name is (e.g. PMD Technologies, however styled, vs. QMD Technologies, or PMD Design), not about how to style it. Until we resolve that problem, people are never going to stop asking this, and stop giving articles unencyclopedic names that serve no purpose but helping companies brand themselves in the marketplace, using WP as free advertising, at the expense of our readers's comprehension and WP's own credibility. If we allow "pmdtechnologies" then we're also bound to allow SONY and BURGER KING. Excuse me, make that:
BURGER
KING
.   How about "no, no, a thousand times no"?  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  07:07, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Utterances and sayings[edit]

Either I've missed it, or this MOS says nothing about them. Maybe they fall under "Words as words"? Anyway, should they be italicised, quotation-marked, both or neither in articles specifically about such a saying? Example pages are The king is dead, long live the king! and Mashallah, both of which have italicised titles, so I'd say they have to be italicised. Would be nice though if the MOS mentioned this. - HyperGaruda (talk) 19:54, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Why would we italicize them? When we're discussing them as utterances, they can be given in quotation marks or italicized as words as words, but they would not be otherwise, including in the topic sentence, where the boldfacing is sufficient. Our articles like Irregardless are the model to use. Mashallahh is being italicized as a non-English. Quotation marks should logically be used for something like "long live the king!", to semantically isolate the "!" as being part of the quoted expression, or reader confusion is likely. A words-as-word analytical example might be something like: Despite the construction of the French expression, the English version is long live the king, since live the king is not idiomatic in this language.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  06:50, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Boldface redirects[edit]

Can someone find the rule used here at William Sloane Coffin, Sr. that when a redirect is mentioned in the text, it to be bolded. I can't find any such rule. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:47, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

In the lead section, maybe (see MOS:BOLD); but not in the body. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:09, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
That’s not exactly what it says, rather “… the first couple of paragraphs of an article, or at the beginning of a section …”.—Odysseus1479 04:47, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I reverted it once, if you feel strongly, please take action. I find it confusing, as if it has extra importance. I do not see it as a useful synonym. BMK has very strong opinions. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:53, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I understood that it only applied to redirects from sub-topics or alternative names. S a g a C i t y (talk) 08:16, 9 November 2015 (UTC) : updated S a g a C i t y (talk) 15:33, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Those are subtopics. (A subtopic is not a subheading, though it may have one; it's something that, not having its own article, is covered at an article that is not entirely about that topic.) The bolding would make more contextual sense if there was a "Companies founded" heading or something. It's highly unlikely any of the companies is notable enough to have its own article, so the William Sloane Coffin Sr. article will probably always remain the article on those companies, too. It is "extra importance", being noteworthy but not quite notable things associated with this figure that people thought were encyclopedically important enough to create redirects for and to write about in the article.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  07:28, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

MOS:BOLD and WP:ACRO for incoming redirects[edit]

See current discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Somewhat related discussion. Please comment there, not here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:27, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

BOLDTITLE / BOLDSYN dispute[edit]

FYI: Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section#Disputing a major BOLDSYN change – vying proposals for addressing when to not boldface alternative names in the lead section.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  06:39, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Use of italics plus quote marks for song lyrics and poetry[edit]

In a recent GA review, it was noted that the use of italics plus quote marks is common for song lyrics and poetry. Also, it was pointed out that this construction is sometimes necessary to distinguish the actual lyrics being quoted from quotations relating to those lyrics. For example,

Discussing the lyrics, particularly the line "Show me that I'm everywhere, and get me home for tea", MacDonald considers the song to be "the locus classicus of English psychedelia".

MOS:NOITALQUOTE states "It is normally incorrect to put quotations in italics. They should only be used if the material would otherwise call for italics, such as for emphasis or to indicate use of non-English words. Quotation marks alone are sufficient and the correct way to denote quotations."

Should the guideline be amended to allow for song lyrics and poetry to use italics plus quote marks? —Ojorojo (talk) 16:39, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to see the guideline changed to allow for the option. Italicising inside quote marks does make it easy to differentiate between three elements that otherwise all receive the same rom + quotes treatment: the lyrics/verse being discussed; quoted critical commentary or interpretation; and titles of songs/poems with which the work might be compared. Admittedly, it's fairly unlikely that a single sentence might contain all three; on the other hand, we can have a paragraph or more containing consecutive sentences with different permutations.
Aside from that, it is an approach I've seen used in many books. An example, citing the same lyric that Ojorojo mentions above, appears in Nicholas Schaffner's book The Beatles Forever, published by McGraw-Hill:
… "It's All Too Much", whose highlights include some searing Velvet Underground feedback and an unusually witty epigram that just about sums up the Spirit of '67: "Show me that I'm everywhere, and get me home for tea."
JG66 (talk) 03:19, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Short quotes of lyrics or poems go in quotation marks; long one quotes, in block quotation markup. Neither are italicized. The convention of italicizing refrains and such within an otherwise non-italic presentation can be respected in the block quotation, but only if found in the original publication of the lyrics/poem (which is a WP:RS, specifically a WP:PRIMARY source that qualifies for WP:ABOUTSELF), not lyric sites or poetry blogs (WP:UGC, unreliable). Per WP:NOT#NEWS, WP:NOT#PAPER, etc., Wikipedia is not bound by the unusual house styles of music journalism publications, or the particular stye choice of individual music book writers.

    Show us a preponderance of mainstream style guides on writing formal/academic English that prefer this style, or even a preponderance of humanities and music-specific style guides that recommend doing this (i.e. prove that this is a consistent, recognized, real-world convention), or there is no case for MoS adopting something like this.

    Doing so would be "dangerous" here, because we already have a widespread problem of people (lots and lots of them) unfamiliar with punctuation and style rules, and confused (naturally) by MediaWiki's use of quote/apostrophe characters for italics markup, who incessantly italicize everything in quotation marks. It's one of our biggest style maintenance headaches. If we make some "official" exception that actually recommends this for a particular case, the problem will become totally unmanageable. The evidence in favor of this practice would have to be overwhelming, and we could still rejected it on internal WP maintenance grounds; WP is not obligated to accept any style even if it's the majority one (it's often very difficult to get consensus to do so, as evidenced by two recent WP:VPPOL RfCs about style matters with overwhelming source support that were nonetheless controverted).  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  21:49, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

"Article title terms" is somewhat misleading[edit]

Currently, it states here:

The most common use of boldface is to highlight the first occurrence of the title word/phrase of the article, and often its synonyms, in the lead section. This is done for the majority of articles, but there are exceptions.

I find this to be somewhat misleading, especially when it made me jump to the conclusion that words outside of the lead sections should not be bolded, not to mention that I have been told by the reviewer of the Xbox One article not to bold something therein which was outside of the lead section. Perhaps, the last sentence ought to be revised as "This is done for the majority of articles, but there are exceptions, such as highlighting text in bold that are subjects of redirects.", which may sound repetitive because it does become rementioned later in the page, but I feel less upset in that way. Gamingforfun365 (talk) 05:44, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I think you read it correctly the first time around; some articles are exceptions to the "bold type at start of lead for the subject of the article" (e.g. today's featured article 2003 Sri Lanka cyclone). What you're referring to could be added to the first sentence, like this:

The most common use of boldface is to highlight the first occurrence of the title word/phrase of the article (and often its synonyms) in the lead section, as well as terms that are redirected to the article or its sub-sections. This is done for the majority of articles, but is not a requirement.

‑‑YodinT 09:46, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
That would make much more sense because, then, it would not seem as though we should either not highlight text in bold outside of lead sections or highlight such text only in rare exceptions. Gamingforfun365 (talk) 20:10, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

When should edition names be treated as names?[edit]

There is an RFC concerning the formatting of names like “special editions” and “remasters” of major works at WT:MOS#Are editions of major works also major works?. Please contribute. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 23:57, 14 June 2016 (UTC)