274:
242:
978:
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.
913:. 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
312:
253:
943:
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
211:
346:
180:
260:
869:
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. --
259:
252:
815:
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
942:
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
428:
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?
868:
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
509:
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
977:
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
884:
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). --
695:), 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. ~
561:
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
458:
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
981:
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
56:
927:. 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. —
524:
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. —
906:
167:
163:
159:
155:
151:
147:
143:
139:
135:
365:
1030:. 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
492:
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? —
924:
956:
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).
171:
1048:
1024:
1000:
736:
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.
91:
914:
751:
41:
247:
97:
359:
354:
481:
273:
241:
967:
849:
37:
17:
907:
Knowledge (XXG) talk:Manual of Style/Text formatting/Archive 6#More clarity may be needed re titles of works in foreign languages
533:
501:
442:
909:, 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
572:
will not need italics; however, not all words listed there will be familiar to readers, so editorial discretion may be required.
86:
804:
704:
399:
391:
336:
321:
222:
406:
in our guidelines, but I've been around long enough to know that there are sometimes practices that contradict guidelines. –
77:
795:
recommendation was the new one. Not quite sure when that got added, but I'm glad that's not the recommendation anymore. ~
429:
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
767:
325:
286:
281:
782:
23:
824:); rather, we're saying to review a bunch of major dictionaries when in doubt. A list of online ones can be found at
329:
179:
130:
635:
I just think the recommendation should allow for more discretion over what words should be italicized. Words like
369:
of
Knowledge (XXG)'s policy and guideline documents is available, offering valuable insights and recommendations.
190:
1077:
228:
778:
761:"If looking for a good rule of thumb, do not italicize words that appear in an English language dictionary."
1081:
972:
936:
894:
878:
854:
808:
786:
770:. The earliest version of the recommendation that I found in Knowledge (XXG):Manual of Style was added at
708:
536:
519:
504:
471:
445:
415:
194:
932:
670:
642:
637:
725:
67:
964:
846:
828:, including meta-search forms that will search a bunch at once. You'll end up with a result that, e.g.,
771:
755:
289:(MoS) guidelines by addressing inconsistencies, refining language, and integrating guidance effectively.
905:
The question of italics for titles of major works in non-Latin scripts has come up before, for example
656:
107:
82:
529:
525:
497:
493:
438:
434:
324:
procedure and is given additional attention, as it closely associated to the
English Knowledge (XXG)
917:– I'm not sure exactly what to call such a page. I came to this Manual of Style page for help while
834:
will be italicized across a majority of them, but a more assimiliated loan-word or loan-phrase like
825:
1073:
800:
700:
411:
838:
will not be. There is nothing broken about this, and the long-standing advice is entirely sound.
195:
549:"As a rule of thumb, do not italicize words that appear in multiple major English dictionaries."
285:, a collaborative effort focused on enhancing clarity, consistency, and cohesiveness across the
688:
928:
515:
467:
63:
1033:
1009:
674:
476:
Hmm, good catch. My use wouldn't be in the lead but to a subsection. Specifically looking at
985:
959:
910:
890:
874:
841:
625:
421:
311:
192:
489:
865:
661:
366:
guidance on how to contribute to the development and revision of
Knowledge (XXG) policies
1003:
796:
696:
617:
589:
407:
403:
395:
793:
do not italicize words that appear unitalicized in multiple major English dictionaries
1056:
1027:
684:
666:
647:
601:
511:
463:
452:
835:
829:
951:
886:
870:
652:
605:
345:
609:
477:
576:
With regard to words that shouldn't be italicized (CMS lists the examples of
577:
597:
353:
For information on Knowledge (XXG)'s approach to the establishment of new
692:
915:
Knowledge (XXG):List of scripts that should or should not be italicized
581:
593:
745:
I have no opinion on the bulk of your post. But, umm, not so new...
679:
621:
613:
585:
628:), they all follow this criterion well. However, some words that
402:. I would welcome any feedback there. I don't see exceptions to
204:
196:
32:
344:
310:
750:
The first instance of the recommendation that I found in
919:
115:
24:
Knowledge (XXG) talk:Manual of Style (text formatting)
1036:
1012:
988:
925:
List of names of Asian cities in different languages
726:
7.56: Roman for familiar words from other languages
1042:
1018:
994:
774:13 April 2005. Yeah, 19 years ago, so not so new.
1052:markup. But when emulating the same markup using
752:Knowledge (XXG):Manual of Style/Text formatting
221:does not require a rating on Knowledge (XXG)'s
482:2024 Apalachee High School shooting § Accused
456:
8:
339:carefully and exercise caution when editing.
1006:but italic/slanted for lowercase as in the
822:Merriam-Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary
295:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Manual of Style
236:
1035:
1011:
987:
279:This page falls within the scope of the
718:
632:be italicized also fit this criterion.
238:
792:
567:
558:
485:
335:Contributors are urged to review the
7:
332:. Both areas are subjects of debate.
298:Template:WikiProject Manual of Style
210:
208:
18:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Manual of Style
944:
227:It is of interest to the following
40:for discussing improvements to the
989:
451:It's specified for biographies at
31:
861:Color compatibility for dark mode
62:New to Knowledge (XXG)? Welcome!
272:
258:
251:
240:
209:
178:
57:Click here to start a new topic.
1062:, italic is necessary: we want
768:Knowledge (XXG):Manual of Style
553:I'm a little uneasy by this new
400:Template talk:Adjacent stations
282:Knowledge (XXG):Manual of Style
42:Manual of Style/Text formatting
1082:07:39, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
973:07:15, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
937:21:49, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
895:16:37, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
879:23:18, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
855:07:22, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
1:
957:
839:
809:20:53, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
787:19:54, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
709:16:36, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
537:14:57, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
520:11:52, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
505:11:47, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
472:11:22, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
446:06:33, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
386:Exceptions to MOS:FONTFAMILY?
54:Put new text under old text.
901:Titles in non-Latin scripts
820:which has gone to bed with
424:from a disambiguation page?
1100:
923:(carefully and tediously)
566:(18th ed.) rightly notes:
320:This page falls under the
105:
766:But, that text came from
416:15:45, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
352:
318:
267:
235:
92:Be welcoming to newcomers
1043:{\displaystyle \varphi }
1019:{\displaystyle \varphi }
557:recommendation. Perhaps
301:Manual of Style articles
995:{\displaystyle \Gamma }
826:WP:ENGLANG#Online tools
818:Chicago Manual of Style
564:Chicago Manual of Style
355:policies and guidelines
1044:
1020:
996:
461:
349:
315:
87:avoid personal attacks
1045:
1021:
997:
348:
330:article titles policy
314:
172:Auto-archiving period
1050:inside <math: -->
1034:
1010:
986:
568:ost terms listed in
758:25 September 2006.
638:épater le bourgeois
1040:
1016:
992:
350:
337:awareness criteria
322:contentious topics
316:
223:content assessment
98:dispute resolution
59:
791:Huh, I guess the
779:Trappist the monk
381:
380:
377:
376:
373:
372:
203:
202:
78:Assume good faith
55:
22:(Redirected from
1091:
1071:
1067:
1061:
1055:
1049:
1047:
1046:
1041:
1025:
1023:
1022:
1017:
1001:
999:
998:
993:
971:
955:
948:element and our
947:
922:
853:
837:
833:
737:
734:
728:
723:
433:for redirects. —
422:MOS:BOLDREDIRECT
363:. Additionally,
303:
302:
299:
296:
293:
276:
269:
268:
263:
262:
261:
256:
255:
254:
244:
237:
214:
213:
212:
205:
197:
183:
182:
173:
118:
33:
27:
1099:
1098:
1094:
1093:
1092:
1090:
1089:
1088:
1069:
1063:
1059:
1053:
1032:
1031:
1008:
1007:
984:
983:
949:
946:...</em: -->
918:
903:
866:MOS:NAVBOXCOLOR
863:
742:
741:
740:
735:
731:
724:
720:
685:Merriam-Webster
675:Merriam-Webster
662:Gleichschaltung
643:Merriam-Webster
570:Merriam-Webster
551:
426:
388:
326:Manual of Style
300:
297:
294:
292:Manual of Style
291:
290:
287:Manual of Style
257:
250:
248:Manual of Style
199:
198:
193:
170:
124:
123:
122:
121:
114:
110:
103:
73:
29:
28:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1097:
1095:
1087:
1086:
1085:
1084:
1074:David Eppstein
1051:</math: -->
1039:
1015:
1004:Gamma function
991:
979:
902:
899:
898:
897:
862:
859:
858:
857:
813:
812:
811:
775:
764:
763:
762:
748:
746:
739:
738:
729:
717:
716:
712:
590:Weltanschauung
559:In most cases,
550:
547:
546:
545:
544:
543:
542:
541:
540:
539:
425:
419:
404:MOS:FONTFAMILY
396:MOS:FONTFAMILY
387:
384:
379:
378:
375:
374:
371:
370:
351:
341:
340:
334:
317:
307:
306:
304:
277:
265:
264:
245:
233:
232:
226:
215:
201:
200:
191:
189:
188:
185:
184:
126:
125:
120:
119:
111:
106:
104:
102:
101:
94:
89:
80:
74:
72:
71:
60:
51:
50:
47:
46:
45:
30:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1096:
1083:
1079:
1075:
1066:
1058:
1037:
1029:
1013:
1005:
980:
976:
975:
974:
969:
966:
963:
962:
953:
941:
940:
939:
938:
934:
930:
926:
921:
916:
912:
908:
900:
896:
892:
888:
883:
882:
881:
880:
876:
872:
867:
860:
856:
851:
848:
845:
844:
832:
827:
823:
819:
814:
810:
806:
802:
798:
794:
790:
789:
788:
784:
780:
776:
773:
769:
765:
760:
759:
757:
754:was added at
753:
749:
747:
744:
743:
733:
730:
727:
722:
719:
715:
711:
710:
706:
702:
698:
694:
690:
686:
682:
681:
676:
672:
668:
664:
663:
658:
654:
650:
649:
644:
640:
639:
633:
631:
627:
626:mise en scène
623:
619:
615:
611:
607:
603:
599:
595:
591:
587:
583:
579:
574:
573:
571:
565:
560:
556:
548:
538:
535:
531:
527:
523:
522:
521:
517:
513:
508:
507:
506:
503:
499:
495:
491:
487:
483:
479:
475:
474:
473:
469:
465:
460:
454:
450:
449:
448:
447:
444:
440:
436:
432:
423:
420:
418:
417:
413:
409:
405:
401:
397:
394:referring to
393:
392:posted a note
385:
383:
368:
367:
362:
361:
356:
347:
343:
342:
338:
333:
331:
327:
323:
313:
309:
308:
305:
288:
284:
283:
278:
275:
271:
270:
266:
249:
246:
243:
239:
234:
230:
224:
220:
216:
207:
206:
187:
186:
181:
177:
169:
165:
161:
157:
153:
149:
145:
141:
137:
134:
132:
128:
127:
117:
113:
112:
109:
99:
95:
93:
90:
88:
84:
81:
79:
76:
75:
69:
65:
64:Learn to edit
61:
58:
53:
52:
49:
48:
43:
39:
35:
34:
25:
19:
1064:
1028:golden ratio
960:
929:Anomalocaris
904:
864:
842:
830:
821:
817:
732:
721:
713:
678:
660:
648:Gastarbeiter
646:
636:
634:
629:
575:
569:
563:
554:
552:
488:. I suppose
484:and bolding
457:
453:MOS:BOLDNICK
430:
427:
389:
382:
364:
358:
319:
280:
229:WikiProjects
219:project page
218:
175:
129:
36:This is the
961:SMcCandlish
945:<em: -->
911:SMcCandlish
843:SMcCandlish
606:bourgeoisie
510:navigate. —
360:WP:PROPOSAL
357:, refer to
714:References
610:telenovela
526:Locke Cole
494:Locke Cole
486:Colin Gray
478:Colin Gray
435:Locke Cole
328:, and the
116:WT:MOSTEXT
831:soto voce
772:this edit
756:this edit
689:Cambridge
602:recherché
578:croissant
408:Jonesey95
100:if needed
83:Be polite
38:talk page
836:per cent
459:article.
176:183 days
131:Archives
108:Shortcut
68:get help
920:editing
805:they/it
705:they/it
671:Collins
657:Collins
598:obscure
582:banh mi
512:Bagumba
464:Bagumba
1068:, not
887:Beland
871:Beland
630:should
624:, and
594:kaiser
490:WP:PLA
225:scale.
680:hygge
622:agape
614:anime
586:pasha
217:This
96:Seek
44:page.
16:<
1078:talk
1057:math
933:talk
891:talk
875:talk
801:talk
783:talk
701:talk
618:eros
555:-ish
516:talk
468:talk
431:just
412:talk
85:and
1072:. —
1026:in
1002:in
970:😼
852:😼
797:F4U
697:F4U
693:OED
677:),
667:OED
659:),
653:OED
645:),
398:at
1080:)
1060:}}
1054:{{
1038:φ
1014:φ
990:Γ
958:—
954:}}
952:em
950:{{
935:)
893:)
877:)
840:—
807:)
803:•
785:)
707:)
703:•
691:,
687:,
673:,
669:,
655:,
620:,
616:,
612:,
608:,
604:,
600:,
596:,
592:,
588:,
584:,
580:,
532:•
528:•
518:)
500:•
496:•
480:→
470:)
455::
441:•
437:•
414:)
390:I
174::
166:,
162:,
158:,
154:,
150:,
146:,
142:,
138:,
66:;
1076:(
1070:φ
1065:φ
968:¢
965:☏
931:(
889:(
873:(
850:¢
847:☏
799:(
781:(
777:—
699:(
683:(
665:(
651:(
641:(
534:c
530:t
514:(
502:c
498:t
466:(
462:—
443:c
439:t
410:(
231::
168:9
164:8
160:7
156:6
152:5
148:4
144:3
140:2
136:1
133::
70:.
26:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
