267:
235:
971:
journal, we leave the chapter or article name upright but we italicize the book or journal name. In parallel citations that are to a book only, we italicize the book. In parallel citations that are to a web page or other smaller item, we leave the name upright. Looking at citations formatted in this way, a reader can tell what type of thing is being cited. This information is visible even in Greek or
Cyrillic scripts to readers unfamiliar with those scripts, because of those scripts' resemblance to Roman. The prohibition on italicizing them, in this context, makes no sense.
906:. My own preference would be to limit italics to scripts based on Latin, Greek and Cyrillic only. If we adopt such a rule, it makes it very easy to state the rule and very easy for editors to understand and comply. If we want to add a short list of other scripts where English italics rules would apply, it should be easy to name them. I think such a list would be very short and we should state it here for the benefit of our editors. However, if the list is long, we should then link to something like
305:
246:
936:
even support italicization in the first place. We have no need to italicize Greek or
Cyrillic, even, because them being non-Latin scripts is already sufficient distinction from the surrounding material. If there were some sea-change of opinion on this, I could see permitting italicization of Greek and Cyrillic for titles of major works, but we really have little if any reason to do it otherwise (except where this happens incidentally, e.g. the
204:
339:
173:
253:
862:
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. --
252:
245:
808:
The fact that the wording specifically includes "in multiple major
English dicitionaries" is precisely to work around the "dictionaries sometimes include non-English terms that would clearly be unfamiliar to the general reader" problem. I.e., we are not depending on any particular dictionary (unlike
935:
The intent of the guidelines and the language templates that support them is to not italicize non-Latin-based scripts, with regard to italicizing titles of works, or material that is not
English being italicized simply because it is non-English, or other reasons for italicization. Some scripts don't
421:
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?
861:
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
502:
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
970:
I would like to italicize
Cyrillic, in references to academic publications, because the italic is not used as "distinction from the surrounding material", as you phrase it, but to convey meaningful information to the reader of the citation: when we cite a chapter in a book, or an article in a
877:
Since no one seems to have any strong opinions about this, I added an item to this section of the MOS just pointing out that content needs to be readable in dark mode, and laying out both of these options (in addition to the option of removing custom colors). --
688:), 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. ~
554:
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
451:
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
974:
For mathematical formulas (often using Greek, much less frequently
Cyrillic) we should use standard mathematical formatting, which (I imagine for historical reasons) is often upright for Greek capitals as in the
49:
920:. In my edit, I removed italics from Bengali–Assamese, Hindi, Marathi, Malayalam, Tamil, Arabic–Persian, Korean, Japanese, and Armenian, scripts that were occasionally but usually not italicized. —
517:
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. —
899:
160:
156:
152:
148:
144:
140:
136:
132:
128:
358:
1023:. Here, a prohibition against italicization makes even less sense. I'm not even sure it's possible in Wikimedia's limited version of LaTeX mathematics formatting to get an upright
485:
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? —
917:
949:
wrapper for it would, in most browsers, produce italicized visual output, though this is subject to user stylesheet whim, and even to CSS in unusual
Knowledge (XXG) skins).
164:
1041:
1017:
993:
729:
A complete sidebar since it's not relevant here, but the newest edition now recommends capitalizing all German nouns unless there is a dictionary recommendation not to.
84:
907:
744:
34:
240:
90:
352:
347:
474:
266:
234:
960:
842:
30:
17:
900:
Knowledge (XXG) talk:Manual of Style/Text formatting/Archive 6#More clarity may be needed re titles of works in foreign languages
526:
494:
435:
902:, a discussion that concluded 20 June 2018. What we say now is almost identical to the revision of 08:20, 20 June 2018 (UTC) by
565:
will not need italics; however, not all words listed there will be familiar to readers, so editorial discretion may be required.
79:
797:
697:
392:
384:
329:
314:
215:
399:
in our guidelines, but I've been around long enough to know that there are sometimes practices that contradict guidelines. –
70:
788:
recommendation was the new one. Not quite sure when that got added, but I'm glad that's not the recommendation anymore. ~
422:
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
760:
318:
279:
274:
775:
817:); rather, we're saying to review a bunch of major dictionaries when in doubt. A list of online ones can be found at
322:
172:
123:
628:
I just think the recommendation should allow for more discretion over what words should be italicized. Words like
362:
of
Knowledge (XXG)'s policy and guideline documents is available, offering valuable insights and recommendations.
183:
1070:
221:
771:
754:"If looking for a good rule of thumb, do not italicize words that appear in an English language dictionary."
1074:
965:
929:
887:
871:
847:
801:
779:
763:. The earliest version of the recommendation that I found in Knowledge (XXG):Manual of Style was added at
701:
529:
512:
497:
464:
438:
408:
187:
925:
663:
635:
630:
718:
60:
957:
839:
821:, including meta-search forms that will search a bunch at once. You'll end up with a result that, e.g.,
764:
748:
282:(MoS) guidelines by addressing inconsistencies, refining language, and integrating guidance effectively.
898:
The question of italics for titles of major works in non-Latin scripts has come up before, for example
649:
100:
75:
522:
518:
490:
486:
431:
427:
317:
procedure and is given additional attention, as it closely associated to the
English Knowledge (XXG)
910:– I'm not sure exactly what to call such a page. I came to this Manual of Style page for help while
827:
will be italicized across a majority of them, but a more assimiliated loan-word or loan-phrase like
818:
1066:
793:
693:
404:
831:
will not be. There is nothing broken about this, and the long-standing advice is entirely sound.
188:
542:"As a rule of thumb, do not italicize words that appear in multiple major English dictionaries."
278:, a collaborative effort focused on enhancing clarity, consistency, and cohesiveness across the
681:
921:
508:
460:
56:
1026:
1002:
667:
469:
Hmm, good catch. My use wouldn't be in the lead but to a subsection. Specifically looking at
978:
952:
903:
883:
867:
834:
618:
414:
304:
185:
482:
858:
654:
359:
guidance on how to contribute to the development and revision of
Knowledge (XXG) policies
996:
789:
689:
610:
582:
400:
396:
388:
786:
do not italicize words that appear unitalicized in multiple major English dictionaries
1049:
1020:
677:
659:
640:
594:
504:
456:
445:
828:
822:
944:
879:
863:
645:
598:
338:
602:
470:
569:
With regard to words that shouldn't be italicized (CMS lists the examples of
570:
590:
346:
For information on Knowledge (XXG)'s approach to the establishment of new
685:
908:
Knowledge (XXG):List of scripts that should or should not be italicized
574:
586:
738:
I have no opinion on the bulk of your post. But, umm, not so new...
672:
614:
606:
578:
621:), they all follow this criterion well. However, some words that
395:. I would welcome any feedback there. I don't see exceptions to
197:
189:
25:
337:
303:
743:
The first instance of the recommendation that I found in
912:
108:
1029:
1005:
981:
918:
List of names of Asian cities in different languages
719:
7.56: Roman for familiar words from other languages
1035:
1011:
987:
767:13 April 2005. Yeah, 19 years ago, so not so new.
1045:markup. But when emulating the same markup using
745:Knowledge (XXG):Manual of Style/Text formatting
214:does not require a rating on Knowledge (XXG)'s
475:2024 Apalachee High School shooting § Accused
449:
8:
332:carefully and exercise caution when editing.
999:but italic/slanted for lowercase as in the
815:Merriam-Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary
288:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Manual of Style
229:
1028:
1004:
980:
272:This page falls within the scope of the
711:
625:be italicized also fit this criterion.
231:
785:
560:
551:
478:
328:Contributors are urged to review the
7:
325:. Both areas are subjects of debate.
291:Template:WikiProject Manual of Style
203:
201:
18:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Manual of Style
937:
220:It is of interest to the following
33:for discussing improvements to the
982:
444:It's specified for biographies at
24:
854:Color compatibility for dark mode
55:New to Knowledge (XXG)? Welcome!
265:
251:
244:
233:
202:
171:
50:Click here to start a new topic.
1055:, italic is necessary: we want
761:Knowledge (XXG):Manual of Style
546:I'm a little uneasy by this new
393:Template talk:Adjacent stations
275:Knowledge (XXG):Manual of Style
35:Manual of Style/Text formatting
1075:07:39, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
966:07:15, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
930:21:49, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
888:16:37, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
872:23:18, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
848:07:22, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
1:
950:
832:
802:20:53, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
780:19:54, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
702:16:36, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
530:14:57, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
513:11:52, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
498:11:47, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
465:11:22, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
439:06:33, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
379:Exceptions to MOS:FONTFAMILY?
47:Put new text under old text.
894:Titles in non-Latin scripts
813:which has gone to bed with
417:from a disambiguation page?
1093:
916:(carefully and tediously)
559:(18th ed.) rightly notes:
313:This page falls under the
98:
759:But, that text came from
409:15:45, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
345:
311:
260:
228:
85:Be welcoming to newcomers
1036:{\displaystyle \varphi }
1012:{\displaystyle \varphi }
550:recommendation. Perhaps
294:Manual of Style articles
988:{\displaystyle \Gamma }
819:WP:ENGLANG#Online tools
811:Chicago Manual of Style
557:Chicago Manual of Style
348:policies and guidelines
1037:
1013:
989:
454:
342:
308:
80:avoid personal attacks
1038:
1014:
990:
341:
323:article titles policy
307:
165:Auto-archiving period
1043:inside <math: -->
1027:
1003:
979:
561:ost terms listed in
751:25 September 2006.
631:épater le bourgeois
1033:
1009:
985:
343:
330:awareness criteria
315:contentious topics
309:
216:content assessment
91:dispute resolution
52:
784:Huh, I guess the
772:Trappist the monk
374:
373:
370:
369:
366:
365:
196:
195:
71:Assume good faith
48:
1084:
1064:
1060:
1054:
1048:
1042:
1040:
1039:
1034:
1018:
1016:
1015:
1010:
994:
992:
991:
986:
964:
948:
941:element and our
940:
915:
846:
830:
826:
730:
727:
721:
716:
426:for redirects. —
415:MOS:BOLDREDIRECT
356:. Additionally,
296:
295:
292:
289:
286:
269:
262:
261:
256:
255:
254:
249:
248:
247:
237:
230:
207:
206:
205:
198:
190:
176:
175:
166:
111:
26:
1092:
1091:
1087:
1086:
1085:
1083:
1082:
1081:
1062:
1056:
1052:
1046:
1025:
1024:
1001:
1000:
977:
976:
942:
939:...</em: -->
911:
896:
859:MOS:NAVBOXCOLOR
856:
735:
734:
733:
728:
724:
717:
713:
678:Merriam-Webster
668:Merriam-Webster
655:Gleichschaltung
636:Merriam-Webster
563:Merriam-Webster
544:
419:
381:
319:Manual of Style
293:
290:
287:
285:Manual of Style
284:
283:
280:Manual of Style
250:
243:
241:Manual of Style
192:
191:
186:
163:
117:
116:
115:
114:
107:
103:
96:
66:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1090:
1088:
1080:
1079:
1078:
1077:
1067:David Eppstein
1044:</math: -->
1032:
1008:
997:Gamma function
984:
972:
895:
892:
891:
890:
855:
852:
851:
850:
806:
805:
804:
768:
757:
756:
755:
741:
739:
732:
731:
722:
710:
709:
705:
583:Weltanschauung
552:In most cases,
543:
540:
539:
538:
537:
536:
535:
534:
533:
532:
418:
412:
397:MOS:FONTFAMILY
389:MOS:FONTFAMILY
380:
377:
372:
371:
368:
367:
364:
363:
344:
334:
333:
327:
310:
300:
299:
297:
270:
258:
257:
238:
226:
225:
219:
208:
194:
193:
184:
182:
181:
178:
177:
119:
118:
113:
112:
104:
99:
97:
95:
94:
87:
82:
73:
67:
65:
64:
53:
44:
43:
40:
39:
38:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1089:
1076:
1072:
1068:
1059:
1051:
1030:
1022:
1006:
998:
973:
969:
968:
967:
962:
959:
956:
955:
946:
934:
933:
932:
931:
927:
923:
919:
914:
909:
905:
901:
893:
889:
885:
881:
876:
875:
874:
873:
869:
865:
860:
853:
849:
844:
841:
838:
837:
825:
820:
816:
812:
807:
803:
799:
795:
791:
787:
783:
782:
781:
777:
773:
769:
766:
762:
758:
753:
752:
750:
747:was added at
746:
742:
740:
737:
736:
726:
723:
720:
715:
712:
708:
704:
703:
699:
695:
691:
687:
683:
679:
675:
674:
669:
665:
661:
657:
656:
651:
647:
643:
642:
637:
633:
632:
626:
624:
620:
619:mise en scène
616:
612:
608:
604:
600:
596:
592:
588:
584:
580:
576:
572:
567:
566:
564:
558:
553:
549:
541:
531:
528:
524:
520:
516:
515:
514:
510:
506:
501:
500:
499:
496:
492:
488:
484:
480:
476:
472:
468:
467:
466:
462:
458:
453:
447:
443:
442:
441:
440:
437:
433:
429:
425:
416:
413:
411:
410:
406:
402:
398:
394:
390:
387:referring to
386:
385:posted a note
378:
376:
361:
360:
355:
354:
349:
340:
336:
335:
331:
326:
324:
320:
316:
306:
302:
301:
298:
281:
277:
276:
271:
268:
264:
263:
259:
242:
239:
236:
232:
227:
223:
217:
213:
209:
200:
199:
180:
179:
174:
170:
162:
158:
154:
150:
146:
142:
138:
134:
130:
127:
125:
121:
120:
110:
106:
105:
102:
92:
88:
86:
83:
81:
77:
74:
72:
69:
68:
62:
58:
57:Learn to edit
54:
51:
46:
45:
42:
41:
36:
32:
28:
27:
19:
1057:
1021:golden ratio
953:
922:Anomalocaris
897:
857:
835:
823:
814:
810:
725:
714:
706:
671:
653:
641:Gastarbeiter
639:
629:
627:
622:
568:
562:
556:
547:
545:
481:. I suppose
477:and bolding
450:
446:MOS:BOLDNICK
423:
420:
382:
375:
357:
351:
312:
273:
222:WikiProjects
212:project page
211:
168:
122:
29:This is the
954:SMcCandlish
938:<em: -->
904:SMcCandlish
836:SMcCandlish
599:bourgeoisie
503:navigate. —
353:WP:PROPOSAL
350:, refer to
707:References
603:telenovela
519:Locke Cole
487:Locke Cole
479:Colin Gray
471:Colin Gray
428:Locke Cole
321:, and the
109:WT:MOSTEXT
824:soto voce
765:this edit
749:this edit
682:Cambridge
595:recherché
571:croissant
401:Jonesey95
93:if needed
76:Be polite
31:talk page
829:per cent
452:article.
169:183 days
124:Archives
101:Shortcut
61:get help
913:editing
798:they/it
698:they/it
664:Collins
650:Collins
591:obscure
575:banh mi
505:Bagumba
457:Bagumba
1061:, not
880:Beland
864:Beland
623:should
617:, and
587:kaiser
483:WP:PLA
218:scale.
673:hygge
615:agape
607:anime
579:pasha
210:This
89:Seek
37:page.
16:<
1071:talk
1050:math
926:talk
884:talk
868:talk
794:talk
776:talk
694:talk
611:eros
548:-ish
509:talk
461:talk
424:just
405:talk
78:and
1065:. —
1019:in
995:in
963:😼
845:😼
790:F4U
690:F4U
686:OED
670:),
660:OED
652:),
646:OED
638:),
391:at
1073:)
1053:}}
1047:{{
1031:φ
1007:φ
983:Γ
951:—
947:}}
945:em
943:{{
928:)
886:)
870:)
833:—
800:)
796:•
778:)
700:)
696:•
684:,
680:,
666:,
662:,
648:,
613:,
609:,
605:,
601:,
597:,
593:,
589:,
585:,
581:,
577:,
573:,
525:•
521:•
511:)
493:•
489:•
473:→
463:)
448::
434:•
430:•
407:)
383:I
167::
159:,
155:,
151:,
147:,
143:,
139:,
135:,
131:,
59:;
1069:(
1063:φ
1058:φ
961:¢
958:☏
924:(
882:(
866:(
843:¢
840:☏
792:(
774:(
770:—
692:(
676:(
658:(
644:(
634:(
527:c
523:t
507:(
495:c
491:t
459:(
455:—
436:c
432:t
403:(
224::
161:9
157:8
153:7
149:6
145:5
141:4
137:3
133:2
129:1
126::
63:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
