![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 9 |
I have been engaged in slightly parallel discussions about italicisation of websites in general at CS1 talk, and on my talk page about the BBC News website in particular. There are two issues at hand:
|website=
as an alias of |work=
making a de facto italicisation of any website that is input as data into the parameter.In neither case am I'm not going to rehash the arguments, as anyone interested can read for themselves before commenting. I've asked the question here before and never received an definitive response. Indeed, the discussion at this level is rather limited. Nevertheless, I would appreciate some views. -- Ohc ¡digame! 05:25, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
|website=
parameter as well as a |work=
parameter. This is a bit similar to the tiresome situation with |publisher=
and |work=
in "cite news", where |publisher=
is almost always redundant and causes confusion when editors think they have to fill it in because it's there.publisher
, a business entity that publishes (and it broadcasts like NBC does, and so on), just like Houghton Mifflin publishes books, and Metropolis Records publishes CDs and vinyl music releases. It is not a work
, and it is more obviously not an author
. The news site BBC produces, titled by them BBC News just like their TV and radio news shows, in
a big logo right there for us to see, with "BBC" aligned vertically over the word "News", is the name of a publication, a work
, just like War and Peace is the name of a novel, and Breaking Bad is the name of a TV show, and The Joshua Tree is the name of pop album, all also italicized as work
s. BBC News is not a publisher
, nor an author
of course. In this particular case, BBC News also happens to be the name of an operational division of the BBC corporation, responsible for producing the online, TV and radio BBC News publications/shows, but this is irrelevant for citation purposes; it would not be italicized in that context, any more than we'd italicize "Marketing Department". Next, "Putin calls Obama to discuss Ukraine" is an article (a title
) at the work
BBC News, by the publisher
BBC. The style of that title we would normalize to "Putin Calls Obama to Discuss Ukraine" in source citations here, BTW. It is a title
just like a song on an album, a chapter in a book, a named segment on a news broadcast, an episode of a TV show. It is not a work
by itself, nor is it, obviously, a publisher
or an author
. Authors are individual people, or committees/working groups, or often unidentified (in such case it is good to use author=<!--staff writer(s); no by-line-->
so no one thinks the author was left off by accident and wastes time looking for it. The work
is occasionally the same as the hostname of the site, in the url
, but most often that assumption is false; Salon is often called Salon.com, but its actual title really is Salon. This is really simple. I'm perpetually mystified by the number of times I run into people misusing the publisher
parameter to list the work
, as if they can't tell the difference between Apple Records and The Magical Mystery Tour. There are quite literally thousands of cases of this particular error all over Wikipedia. It's maddening. —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ⚞(Ʌⱷ҅̆⚲͜ⱷ^)≼
05:16, 29 March 2014 (UTC)MOS does not say whether or not climbing routes should be italicised. WikiProject Climbing/Article Guidelines#Routes says "Route names should be italicized". One editor had suggested (somewhat weakly) in 2009 that route names should be italicized. Another editor questioned this in 2010 and got no response. Should they be italicised? I'm surprised to see it myself. Nurg ( talk) 00:31, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
The wording at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Text formatting#Uses of italics that are specific to Wikipedia reading:
A further type of cross-reference may occur within a paragraph of text, usually in parentheses. For example:
- At this time France possessed the largest population in Europe (see Demographics of France).
Unlike many traditional reference works, the convention on Wikipedia that has evolved is that "see" or "see also" are not in italics. Nor are the article titles put in quotation marks.
appears to not represent consensus at all. In fact, it flies in the face of over a decade of consistently italicizing such WP self-references and other instructions to the reader/editor, both in mainspace and in policyspace. This very MOS subpage itself uses the italicization convention! See, e.g., MOS:TEXT#Article title terms:
The most common use of boldface is to highlight the article title, and often synonyms, in the lead section. This is done for the majority of articles, but there are exceptions. See Lead section – Format of the first sentence for in-depth coverage.
It is correct that the practice, favored in some academic journals, of italicizing only the "see" or "see also" part is eschewed on Wikipedia, and that's an important and valid thing to note.
We should clarify this entire section, and give examples:
At any rate, the idea that the first of these is suddenly incorrect on Wikipedia is total nonsense. It's how literally hundreds of thousands of such cross-references have been done, surely the vast majority of them. I regularly correct non-italicized ones to italicized, and I don't recall anyone ever, even once, reverting me on that. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ⚞(Ʌⱷ҅̆⚲͜ⱷ^)≼ 04:35, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
{{
See also}}
, {{
Main}}
, etc., etc.) auto-italicize it all. —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ⚞(Ʌⱷ҅̆⚲͜ⱷ^)≼
07:53, 29 March 2014 (UTC)<div>
. —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼
11:36, 18 May 2014 (UTC)Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Titles#Centralizing MOS material on titles of works for efforts to clean up the confusingly scattered nature of our advice on titles of works, including at this page. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 12:19, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Under "Named vehicles", MOS:ITALIC explicitly states that italics should be used for ship names and trains and locomotives. But what about named automobiles? Currently there's a great deal of inconsistency regarding the use of italics in named automobile articles. For example (the first 5 named automobile articles I thought of):
I think it be helpful if MOS:ITALIC gave some guidance in this matter. Thanks. DH85868993 ( talk) 11:28, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Regarding this recent edit and the corresponding one at MOS:ACCESS#Text, please see Wikipedia talk:Signatures#On the topic of "Appearance and color" and line-height, and post comments there. -- Redrose64 ( talk) 20:25, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi everyone!
I wrote a text in Word that include a lot of italic words. I would like to copy and paste this (huge) text into a Wikipedia articles. When formatting my text to fit to the Wikipedia style, I really don't want to add the double quotes for italic words manually. Is there by any chance a way to add a double apostrophe before and after all italicized words in Word, so that I can copy and paste my text directly to Wikipedia? Many thanks in advance for your help.-- Christophe Hendrickx ( talk) 13:08, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
See discussion here: WT:AT#Italicization of Latin incipits -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 02:23, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
I've opened an RfC at Template talk:Tq#Removing the italics option that could affect the unwanted incidence of italicization of quotations simply because they're quotations. See also Template talk:Qq#Italicization disputed for some related discussion. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 11:39, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Succession Box Standardization#Unnecessary bold proposes removal of bold from succession boxes as that bold is contrary to MOS:BOLD. Comments on that page are welcome. One obvious questions is: should we consider updating MOS:BOLD to include use of bold in succession/nav/info boxes? (I think not, but one must ask the question.) Mitch Ames ( talk) 06:02, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
There is a proposal at the Village Pump that WT:MoS be established as Wikipedia's official page for style Q&A. This would involve actively guiding editors with style questions to WT:MoS and away from other pages, such as this one. Participation is welcome. Darkfrog24 ( talk) 20:22, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Why do the sections on boldface and italic advocate using templates and HTML code instead of wiki markup? I understood that Wikipedia favors use of wiki markup and discourages use of HTML code. Using templates makes editing even more complex for typical people who would like to edit Wikipedia.— Finell 23:42, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
{{
em}}
, with wikimarkup for italics, '' … ''
. I agree with the reasoning at
Template:Em/doc and suggest you restore the previous guidance. --
Michael Bednarek (
talk)
03:18, 24 May 2015 (UTC){{
em}}
, {{
strong}}
, {{
var}}
are not templates to achieve italics – they have a special meaning although they might, or might not, render text in italics. --
Michael Bednarek (
talk)
11:27, 24 May 2015 (UTC)<em> ... </em>
or
Template:em. However, § 1.4, which said to use italic rather than boldface for emphasis, showed only wiki markup. However, § 2.2 ("Emphasis") in the main MOS said to use italic sparingly for emphasis, with no mention of using a template or HTML. On this page, § 1 ("Boldface") says that boldface "is usually created by surrounding the text to be boldfaced with triple apostrophes: ...
, but can also be done with the <b>...</b>
HTML element." No reason exists for the MOS to mention HTML as an alternative to wiki markup.As someone brought up on my talk page, our examples, esprit de corps and praetor, of what to not italicize when it comes to foreign borrowings are both actually italicized at each of their respective articles! D'oh. I bet that a review of all major style guides that happen to include praetor or comparably familiar ancient Roman titles, like legatus, lictor and quaestor (i.e. less familar than centurion, consul, and prefect, but much more so that obscure ones like cubicularius, praefectus urbi and signiferi), will not italicize them, nor other familiar ones in other languages (czar/tsar, caliph, kaiser, etc., vs. Feldwebel, shàngjiàng and kuningatar). For the French phrase, in question, esprit de corps, I'd bet that a significant number of style manuals do still italicize that phrase. It's mid-way on the adoption curve. Like force majeure, éminence grise, and enfant terrible, it's not nearly as familiar as everyday terms like laissez-faire, tour de force, ménage à trois, carte blanche, cordon bleu, but much more familiar to most people in most contexts that adoptions that are almost always still italicized, like fait accompli, coup de grâce, noblesse oblige, etc. Dance and cooking terms like folie à deux and soufflé are almost never italicized any longer. A similar "adoption curve" would be easy to come up with for Spanish, German, even Japanese. We need to more clearly spell out that super-familiar, fully-assimilated things like zeitgeist, macho, chic, and samurai don't need italics (nor German capitalization of common nouns), but uncommon ones (Weltanschaaung, Sagrada Familia, objet trouvé) do, and need to better convey that uncertain cases should be based on what sources are doing ( not specialist sources, which will either italicize nothing, ever, that's familiar in that field, or conversely italicize everything as a form of overcorrection and emphasis). "Sources" here means modern (e.g. last 25 years) a) style guides intended for general English language writing, b) examples of general English-language writing like usage in major newsweeklies, and c) dictionaries that do italicize some of these phrases, when uncommon, and do not when common (some dictionaries italicize no entries at all, and others probably over-italicize virtually all modern borrowings, no matter how well-assimilated they are. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 14:28, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
@ Kwamikagami: In a recent edit, you changed the text to say that some non-Latin scripts shouldn't be italicized. This implies that some can be italicized. As far as I know, all non-Latin scripts should not italicized, and I can't think of any exceptions, so please explain. — Eru· tuon 22:35, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
The discussion about whether to italicize the names of spacecraft, per MOS:TEXT, has been reopened at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 48#Should this be italicized?. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 16:25, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
I propose adding the following to the "Other text formatting concerns" section:
The reason is that the formatting applied by many citation templates do not match the guidelines set forth on this page. Nonetheless, the formatting applied by many citation templates is the result of broad consensus for how citations should be formatted, non-Wikipedia guidelines (eg. MLA style), or technical reasons. This issue has been the subject of several discussions, particularly in relation to italicization of works, such as (ordered somewhat in order of depth/relevance):
This is also an issue that seems to arise often at featured content reviews. There really needs to be something in the MOS to reconcile the differences between the text formatting guidelines on this page and the formatting style used by citation templates. Since most citation pages aren't part of the MOS, I think this page is a good location for such a guideline. AHeneen ( talk) 21:36, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
When CS1/CS2 are used in their default "native" Wikipedia citation style mode (i.e., not being used to generate an externally-derived citation style like Vancouver), they should entirely comply with MOS (but that doesn't mean what it sounds like). If there is some way in which they do not, then either they need to change, or a variance needs to be accounted for in the fine print over here at MOS:TEXT, and it will probably be the latter (though there have been some exceptions, I think).
In some cases this conflict is actually illusory anyway: We do not italicize the names of websites. But they are being italicized in
{{ Cite web}}
. It's not because it's an error or because CS1 is recalcitrant, it's because a different rule is being applied secondarily. The website name is being added without italics because it's a website (a default rule for that medium, as with application software). Then italicization is being added after the fact by a rule (italicize titles of major works) that is general and applies regardless of medium. So, in the specific context of a reference citation where the site is the|work=
, then it would be italicized, because it's being contextualized as a major published work, not as an online service, business enterprise, or any other kind of "thing". Illusory or not, it's liable to be confusing without clarification, so we should account for it as a variance (because the usage in the cite templates is correct), rather than de-italicize in the template, and certainly rather than declaring MOS and CS1 to be in some kind of conflict. I would strongly suggest that this same kind of analysis be applied to any other apparent conflicts between MOS and the cite templates (in "native" mode). We just fix them.What would be undesirable is addition of a rule exception for citation templates across the board at MOS:TEXT, because that would allow later divergence of CS1/CS2 in "native" mode from MOS for no reason (raising WP:LOCALCONSENSUS issues, people fighting about it). Our own internal citation styles should always be in agreement with our own internal style guide (even that mostly means MOS makes a variance for CS1/CS2). As long as we only add a rule in MOS:TEXT saying "does not apply to externally-derived citation styles like Vancouver, ..." or something to this effect (to keep people from stripping smallcaps or whatever), this should basically mean that MOS and the internal citation style are never out of synch for more than a brief time in which a simple discussion will resolve the newly arisen discrepancy. Easy-peasy.
— SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 02:32, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
A specific rewording, addressing several needs at once, might run like this:
Text formatting in citations should follow, consistently within an article, an established citation style or system. Options include either of Wikipedia's own template-based Citation Style 1 and Citation Style 2, and any other well-recognized citation system . The formatting applied by citation templates should not be evaded.[fn] Parameters should be accurate, and should not be omitted if the formatting applied by the template is not in agreement with the text formatting guidelines above. Those guidelines do not apply to any non-Wikipedia citation style, which should not be changed to conform to them.
...
fn. In unusual cases the default formatting may need to be adjusted to conform to some other guideline, e.g. italicization of a non-English term in a title that would otherwise not be italicized.
[What footnote system is used doesn't matter, of course, or it could be done not as a footnote at all. Any way you like.]
This provides more information and links, reinforces consistency within the article, distinguishes between WP and off-WP cite styles, permits necessary adjustments, and warns against alteration of non-MOS styles in externally-derived cite styles (important because some of them are quite jarring and frequently inspire "correction", especially to remove smallcaps). — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 03:36, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
PS: See also Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Titles#Clarification on websites, on when and when not to italicize website titles. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 04:01, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Please see WT:MOS#Wikipedia's "Manual of Style/Text formatting" should allow boldfacing of "row headings". This was first raised at Village Pump, and I suggested moving it to WT:MOS. It shouldn't result in any site-wide changes, but rather document how people are already styling lists, and offer some pointers on doing it sensibly and consistently. Still, lists are basic enough to how we write articles that centralizing the discussion at the main MOS page seemed wise. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 22:43, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
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)
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 ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 06:39, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
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)
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? Pam D 14:34, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
-- [[
User:Edokter]] {{
talk}}
15:57, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
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 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)
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 ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 21:49, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
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)
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.
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)
Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Composition titles advice consolidation for discussion of merging composition-titles-related material from this sub-guideline into the main WP:Manual of Style/Titles ( MOS:TITLES) sub-guideline with the rest of that material, then just summarizing the key relevant points here and cross-referencing MOS:TITLES. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 08:50, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
I've only been on Wikipedia for a little while, but I've noticed that the formatting of the names of the Voyager and Pioneer spacecraft is inconsistent. This is visible on the Voyager 1 and Voyager program pages.
A concise (and the most recent) discussion I could find concerning the issue was this talk page, where no consensus seems to have been reached. Here were the main arguments, in summary:
1. Voyager 1 and others like it are spacecraft, and therefore should be italicized.
2. The NASA style guide says not to italicize probe names, and thus we shouldn't either. They aren't true spacecraft.
3. Voyager and Pioneer are class names, and thus it should be "Voyager 1", etc., with only the class being italicized and not the number.
I'm not sure which side I personally prescribe to, thought the third option does seem to make the most sense, however bold it may be. Regardless, I believe we need a clear rule about whether and what to italicize. Thoughts? Jgfceit ( talk) 21:39, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Talk:Unknown Pleasures#RfC: Italics for Pitchfork (website) magazine?. —
JJMC89 (
T·
C)
04:39, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
See related discussion at Wikipedia talk:Article titles#Words as words on whether or not (and if so: how) this type of italicisation can be applied to article titles. Please discuss there, not here. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 08:05, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Currently MOS:BOLD says (with my underline for emphasis) "Boldface ... is common in Wikipedia articles, but only for certain usages." but MOS:ITALICS says "Italics ... are used for various specific purposes in Wikipedia ..". In particular MOS:ITALICS does not say that italics are only for those purposes (as MOS:BOLD does).
I propose that MOS:ITALICS should changed to "Italics ... are used only for various specific purposes in Wikipedia .." for consistency with MOS:BOLD.
The problem with not including the word "only" is that any editor can use italics for any arbitrary purpose and legitimately says that there's no guideline against it. (Example: [2], Template talk:Western Australian elections#italics.) If italics can be used arbitrarily, it defeats the purpose of enumerating specific purposes, reduces the value of italics (because it's harder to know what the italics formatting means in any given usage) and reduces the consistency of the text formatting in general. Mitch Ames ( talk) 03:05, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
and the italics are quite then quite clear for this emphasis— I suggest that it is not "quite clear" what the italics mean. It would be much clearer if we just said so explicitly. Mitch Ames ( talk) 13:11, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
I agree that we should write guidelines and policies so as to not allow loopholes like this. I've been told that MOS:NOBOLD's "Avoid using boldface for emphasis" does not tell you not to use it for emphasis. I'm similarly bugged by WP:PSEUDOHEAD's wording: "Do not make pseudo-headings using semicolon markup and try to avoid using bold markup", which arguably prohibits the former but not the latter. – Finnusertop ( talk ⋅ contribs) 20:22, 21 January 2017 (UTC)"The problem with not including the word 'only' is that any editor can use italics for any arbitrary purpose and legitimately says that there's no guideline against it."
water bodies are displayed in italics in a table of neighbouring (implicitly land-based) locations— per [3] [4], listing an ocean as a suburb is just wrong. Fix the root problem instead of using italics to emphasis the error. Mitch Ames ( talk) 13:26, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
@ Number 57, Nightstallion, Wykx, and The Drover's Wife: the proposed change is to WP:ITALICS in general; not just election templates. If there is a legitimate case for using italics in election templates — then, as ScottDavis suggests, add that usage to the list of "certain usages". (I disagree with that usage; we should instead explicitly state that the election hasn't happened yet.) But even if we add that usage to the list, I still think we should explicitly state that italics are only used for the listed purposes, otherwise there's no point in listing the usages at all. Mitch Ames ( talk) 13:22, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Text in non-Latin scripts (such as Greek, Cyrillic or Chinese) should neither be italicized as non-English nor bolded, even where this is technically feasible; the difference of script suffices to distinguish it on the page.
Should this apply to non-body-text instances where text is bold-set by default, e.g. in section and table headers? Adding {{ nobold}} to every such instance seems like an unnecessary hassle, and doesn't seem in line with the spirit of the recommendation, which is to avoid unnecessary formatting (in fact, it overly distinguishes the foreign script, making it appear thin when everything else is bold). -- Paul_012 ( talk) 15:57, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
To quote MOS:BOLD: "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." And often its synonyms? Once we go down that path, it calls to question whether the WP:COMMONAME that we had chosen was the correct one. Perhaps we can do without the "(and often its synonyms)" and simply have only the common name highlighted? Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 04:25, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
There is no provision in the guidelines for boldfacing things just because they're ambiguous; I don't know where Narky Blert got that idea from. I'm unaware of it in any other style guide, either.
—
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼
21:40, 19 June 2017 (UTC)