Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Titles

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Manual of Style    (Inactive)
WikiProject icon This page was within the scope of WikiProject Manual of Style, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.
 

TV[edit]

Recent TV series stuff moved to: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television).

WP:SUBTITLES[edit]

FYI, I'm proposing a change to this guideline, regarding the style for long titles and subtitles of works at WP:SUBTITLES. See also WP:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive 16#WP:SUBTITLES. I would appreciate any comments that you might have. superlusertc 2007 December 20, 09:52 (UTC)

This is either contradicting or confusing[edit]

Policy (Wikipedia:Article titles#Special characters and formatting) says "Formatting, such as italics or bolding, is technically achievable in page titles but is used only in special cases, one example of which is taxonomic names of genera and species." Repeated in this guideling. Either this MoS guideline is refering to the title being the first instance of the article title in prose (likely, judging by the formatting instructions lower down) or it refers to the actual title at the very top and is therefore contradictory and the instructions are useless. I'll make a stab at clearing this up later, but I thought I'd give the chance for anyone to comment first. Rambo's Revenge (talk)

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) 23:58, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Request for comment: What is the correct capitalization for the article about ARM "big.LITTLE"?[edit]

There is no consensus in this RfC to rename ARM big.LITTLE to ARM Big.Little. I recommend opening a Wikipedia:Requested moves discussion at Talk:ARM big.LITTLE if any editors want to further discuss the name further. Cunard (talk) 05:31, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

Hi there,

The article about the computer processor architecture "big.LITTLE" is currently named as I've written it here ("LITTLE" is not an acronym"). Should the Wikipedia article page be called:

ARM big.LITTLE

or

ARM Big.Little

Thanks in advance for any help!

InternetMeme (talk) 18:17, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it should ever be "ARM Big.Little", as the period is just as stylized as the capitalization. If we're going to use a non-stylized name, it would be "ARM Big Little". Pburka (talk) 15:00, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
@InternetMeme: I agree with Pburka that if there's consensus to use a non-stylized name, it would be Arm Big Little. However, typically, we use article titles that are easily recognizable, so that's something we need to take into consideration. Recruited by the feedback request service -- I dream of horses  If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message  (talk to me) (My edits) @ 04:39, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
talk:ARM big.LITTLE has quite a lot of discussion about this (though it seems to have petered out by the end of 2013. The consensus there at that time was that ARM big.LITTLE was correct as that was what all reliable sources were calling the architecture. Unless this has changed, I don't see any reason why we shouldn't retain that consensus. After all, article titles do use non-standard/stylised orthography and capitalisation when reliable sources consistently use that orthography, as at iPod, eBay, Deadmau5, PlayStation, LaTeX (NB: we do not use "Latex", as nobody uses that – and it would have to be disambiguated – but nor do we use "LaTeX" as the article title.) On the other hand, if a more standard orthography is used in reliable sources, then we tend to use that: e.g. Pink (singer) rather than P!nk or P!NK. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 11:21, 4 July 2016 (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.

Classical Music: Minor/Major Works[edit]

Hi all, please can you take a look at Talk:Wedding Day at Troldhaugen#Major Work? and give your thoughts if you get a chance. Thanks. :) ‑‑YodinT 15:59, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Artifice[edit]

The lead says, "This part of the Manual of Style covers title formats and style for works of art or artifice, such as capitalization and italics versus quotation marks." I tried to remove "or artifice", because its use here struck me as odd, but Chaos5023 reverted saying the usage is fine. What are we using "artifice" to mean? I looked it up to see if there was a definition I wasn't familiar with, but I'm not seeing anything that might makes sense here:

  • Oxford Dictionaries: "Clever or cunning devices or expedients, especially as used to trick or deceive others"
  • Cambridge Dictionary: "(the use of) a clever trick or something intended to deceive"
  • Merriam-Webster:
    1 a : clever or artful skill : ingenuity "believing that characters had to be created from within rather than with artifice" —Garson Kanin; b : an ingenious device or expedient
    2 a : an artful stratagem : trick; b : false or insincere behavior "social artifice"
    The difference between art and artifice...Artifice stresses creative skill or intelligence, but also implies a sense of falseness and trickery. Art generally rises above such falseness, suggesting instead an unanalyzable creative force. Actors may rely on some of each, but the personae they display in their roles are usually artificial creations. Therein lies a lexical connection between art and artifice. Artifice derives from artificium, Latin for artifice (that root also gave English artificial). Artificium in turn developed from ars, the Latin root underlying the word art (and related terms such as artist and artisan)

None of this fits to me. As far as I can tell, "artifice" isn't something that would be given a title. What am I missing? PermStrump(talk) 12:43, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the wording is a bit... arcane? I'd assumed it meant things that weren't works of art, like Dictionaries, Journals, etc. but which still had titles. OED meaning 3 is:
  • "Technical skill; artistry, ingenuity."
Which applies to these "non-works-of-art", that are still the product of skill. That said, I'd prefer a better and more down to earth form of words than "works of art or artifice". ‑‑YodinT 13:48, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
I just googled the full phrase "art or artifice" and it's used to mean something along the line of, "Is this really artwork or does it just seem like it at surface level?" or "Is this art or fraud?", but not as an umbrella term for things other than artwork that might have a title. Here are some other suggestions...
  • works of art or other major works
  • works of art, music, writing, film, and other major works
I think I like the 2nd one best, "This part of the Manual of Style covers title formats and style for works of art, music, writing, film, and other major works, such as capitalization and italics versus quotation marks.", but I'm also open to other suggestions. It's hard to think of one precise term! PermStrump(talk) 19:32, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
I think "art, music, writing, film, and other major works" leaves out the very things that might be termed "artifice". I think the first definition in the Merriam-Webster entry (linked above), "clever or artful skill; ingenuity", is the one meant here, and remember, it's not a "clever or artful skill", it's a work that demonstrates clever or artful skill or ingenuity" ("a work of...artifice"). If you look at the bulleted list at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Titles#Major works, you will see several items that are not generally thought of as art such as:
  • Comic books, comic strips, graphic novels and manga
  • Computer and video games (but not other software)
  • Television and radio programs, specials, shows, series and serials.
If you look at the bulleted list at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Titles#Minor works, you will see several similar items such as:
  • Single episodes or plot arcs of a television series or other serial audio-visual program
  • Segments of a play, film, television show, etc., including named acts, skits, scenes, and the like
  • Speeches, lectures, and conference presentations (only if given a specific title).
All of these can have a title. I think "art and artifice" neatly sums up the two general categories of creative work. It can be a matter of discussion and opinion whether a particular work is a work of art or a work of artifice, but all creative works can be included in the phrase.  – Corinne (talk) 20:41, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
How about using "creative work" instead then, like this: "This part of the Manual of Style covers title formats and style for creative works, such as capitalization, and italics versus quotation marks."? This would be much more plain, everyday use of language. ‑‑YodinT 23:28, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm for keeping the phrase that is there. It is simply an introduction to the page, a very clear and well organized page. Any editor who seeks out this page for guidance will not find it an obstacle.  – Corinne (talk) 23:50, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
In the context it means "works of art and also things that it would be painful to call works of art but still have relevant titles, like the Manual of Technical Writing, 3rd Edition". It's fine the way it is. If we spoke classical Greek we could say "art and artifice" by saying "techne", but we don't so we can't. —chaos5023 (talk) 17:14, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
Agree with the sentiment, in a perfect world, but the wording is too arcane for the encyclopedia anyone can edit, including people who don't have as many dictionaries as you and I do, or time to tease out which meaning was intended. I support the more explanatory wording "works of art, music, writing, film, and other major works" or something like that.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  08:57, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Is the current wording of the lead supposed to say (paraphrased): "This page outlines the formatting guidelines for titles of works of art or non-art"? It always takes me a good minute to figure out if I'm on the right page when I get here, which is why I tried tweaking the wording the other day. The first part of the problem is that the hatnote is so freakin long. After you make it through the hatnote, there's an ambiguously worded description that doesn't mention the majority of types of works people are probably coming to this page to look up. I think it's good to list a few of the most common examples, so people know right off the bat that this page is about all types of titles and not just art and artifice ("whatever that is", they will think). Here are some options that kind of combine ideas people have mentioned here (including the current version):
  • This part of the Manual of Style covers title formats and style for...
  1. works of art or artifice (current)
  2. works of art, music, writing, film, television, and other major or minor works (proposed)
  3. works of art, music, writing, film, television, and other creative or professional works (proposed)
  4. works of art, music, writing, film, television, and other forms of media (proposed)
Should we do an RFC? PermStrump(talk) 11:03, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Consolidating advice on titles of works[edit]

FYI: Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Composition titles advice consolidation for discussion of merging composition-titles-related material from the MOS:CAPS and MOS:ITALICS sub-guidelines into this, the main WP:Manual of Style/Titles (MOS:TITLES) sub-guideline, which already has the rest of that material, then just summarizing the key relevant points at those pages and cross-referencing MOS:TITLES from them, as we're already doing elsewhere (e.g. at the main WP:MOS page).  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  08:50, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

How to refer to the article topic's title throughout the article?[edit]

Should the article topic be referred to by the stylized title, of say a creative work, or by the article title's typography? (eg. channel ORANGE rather than Channel Orange) Dan56 (talk) 20:01, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Revisiting exhibitions[edit]

I'd like to revisit previous discussions of italicizing exhibitions (previously mentioned but not discussed in 2011 and 2007). I can appreciate that this might be a niche topic, but you're watching a MoS page so bear with me. Chicago is the odd man out in that its 16th edition added a new rule to italicize art exhibitions. For example, a show at X museum would be italicized instead of put in quotation marks. Other style guides, including the MLA and APA appear not to handle them this way, nor is it how websites like Artsy, the New York Times, Frieze, Art in America, etc., handle exhibition titles... Italics are usually reserved, especially in context of discussing exhibitions, to describe creative works, such as individual artworks or installations, and I'd argue that the italics for exhibition titles appears strange when juxtaposed with "creative works" in this regard, against both the precedent of the style used in our reliable sources and our standards for italics. So I don't see why Chicago was privileged all other standards, given the drawbacks. Thoughts? czar 01:57, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

RfC: music singles may consist of multiple tracks (songs), so shouldn't they be considered "major works" like albums and EPs?[edit]

Please add comments here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs#More about singles versus songs versus albums ("major" versus "minor" works). --Ilovetopaint (talk) 22:27, 14 May 2017 (UTC)