Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style

See also
Wikipedia talk:Writing better articles
Wikipedia talk:Article titles
Wikipedia talk:Quotations
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/quotation and punctuation

RfC on Consensus

Given WP:CONLIMITED, to what extent and under what circumstances can individual WikiProjects and users customize article appearance with individual styles that deviate from site-wide style guidelines? Interested contributors are invited to participate there. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk)

Specific statement with respect to double sentence spacing or double spacing after terminal punctuation is needed

It seems that the merits of single versus double sentence spacing, or spacing after terminal punctuation, have been discussed extensively and that the consensus is that single sentence spacing is recommended on Wikipedia, as seen at MOS:PUNCTSPACE, so please do not debate that here. However, double sentence spacing is still used extensively. Thus, the Manual of Style should probably address double sentence spacing, perhaps with a second sentence after the current policy, "In normal prose, never place a space before commas, semicolons, colons, or terminal punctuation, but place a space after them." It could resemble one of the following, which differ greatly in policy:

"Double sentence spacing, or the use of two spaces after terminal punctuation,

1. is also acceptable."
2. is also acceptable, but consistency should be maintained throughout the article."
3. is not recommended but is permissible."
4. is discouraged."
5. should be avoided."
6. is incorrect."

Without any such statement, as we presently lack, editors may be unclear as to what is acceptable and what is not. Adavis444 (talk) 16:37, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

This is covered by the last bullet at WP:MOS#Terminal punctuation. (It makes no difference from a style point of view, since browsers ignore extra spaces.) PL290 (talk) 17:24, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

That's true. Besides, trying to get this changed to something less ambiguous will lead to screams of protest. You can find some of the discussions in the archives. More information is available at Sentence spacing and Sentence spacing in language and style guides, which are articles, not policies. --Airborne84 (talk) 18:11, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not so much that there's consensus that one is better but rather consensus that most Internet browsers will shrink it to one regardless of what's typed in so our rage is better channeled to other ares. Heh. Frankly, I like that the MoS explicitly gives editors their freedom here. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree, there should be no attempt at trying to dictate how editors type in edit boxes—especially since it makes little difference there. However, I will note that a couple of attempts at adding WP:MoS material that would prevent/discourage editors from forcing double spaces in the final markup have also been (rather irrationally) opposed here. I don't know if Adavis was referring to the final markup (what readers actually see), or if he/she just didn't know about the entry at WP:MOS#Terminal punctuation. --Airborne84 (talk) 01:38, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Has anyone actually ever done something like First sentence.  Second sentence.  (if that's what you mean by "forcing double spaces in the final markup")? If not, telling people not to do that is pointless per WP:BEANS and hence a Bad Thing per WP:CREEP, IMO. A. di M. (formerly Army1987) (talk) 09:41, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

A fair argument. However, the statment about not forcing double spaces between sentences (in quotations only) was placed next to this one that was already in the MoS about "Allowable typographic changes" in quotations.

• Spaces before punctuation such as periods and colons: these should be removed as alien to modern English-language publishing.

No one suggested that both statements be removed. Only the one about double-spacing after sentences. Both statements were equally valid. Why remove one and not the other? Why allow one and not the other? I thought it rather irrational. --Airborne84 (talk) 11:52, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

To obtain a space before a colon, you just need to type it, whereas to obtain several spaces after a full stop (or anywhere else) you need to take special measures which I think most WP editors aren't even aware of. A. di M. (formerly Army1987) (talk) 10:35, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, I don't know what statement you are referring to. "Allowable changes" has never had a statement about multiple spaces: it was added with this revision and that statement already wasn't there. A. di M. (formerly Army1987) (talk) 12:32, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

←So is it going to be Option 3? That seems sensible to me: no article is rendered in breach, but the inevitability of moving on from "French" spacing is acknowledged. Just a gentle bit of steering. Tony (talk) 11:19, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Remembering that one of the aims of the MoS is to encourage consistency, where reasonably possible, between articles across the encyclopedia, I would have thought it beneficial to leave matters of basic text formatting (such as paragraph spacing, line spacing, default font face and size, margins ...) in the hands of the rendering environment (i.e., the combination of the WikiMedia software and users' custom css stylesheets). The present discussion appears to me to fall into that category. I would suggest that if anything, our guideline ought to state that articles should not include code that alters the basic text formatting style of article text. PL290 (talk) 11:42, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

For A di M, I added the line above to complement the one about spaces before colons, etc. with this diff, [1]. Both conventions are alien to modern English-language publishing, so it seemed logical to add one if the other was already present. However, only one was promtly deleted, and discussion about why the other was left untouched was ignored when I opened a new thread on the talk page.

I eventually just let it go, however, since it was only a small addition anyway—it only affected quoted material, not everything on Wikipedia. I referred to it here only to make a point about the original purpose of this thread. If the objection to adding a restriction about forcing double spacing only in quoted material (as alien to English-language publishing) was argued so strenuously, imagine the protest against similar language that affects all of Wikipedia. See also this archive, where I tried repeatedly to drop the POV statement at the end of Terminal punctuation to a simple statement that "it's irrelevant" and others kept trying to add material that supported their point of view and style preference. We finally had to settle on a statement that is inaccurate, but was the least worst solution.

Here is what gathered in the 40+ language and style guides that I have reviewed on sentence spacing.

• Most smaller style guides that don't have the space to discuss typography do not discuss sentence spacing, but offer examples of text that are single sentence spaced.
• Not one comprehensive style guide that I have seen allows double sentence spacing in final or published work.
• I have seen three style guides that leave room for writers to use double sentence spacing in draft work only, but note that final and published work is single sentence spaced.

Thus, I would support language that allows editors to use whatever sentence spacing style they prefer while typing in edit boxes (editors should be able to type the way they learned, if they desire). I would not support language that explicitly states it is permissible to generate the final markup of an article (what readers see) that is double sentence spaced.

Of course, I am only one editor here. But the key point that I made before and I would like to make again is that editors here need to put aside the style preferences that they were taught in school and agree on a style that makes Wikipedia better, is consistent with print and Web media, and accounts for modern style guides and experts on typography. There's no issue with making allowances for people's style preference, as long as it doesn't make the final product look different than what people read everywhere else. --Airborne84 (talk) 16:39, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

We finally had to settle on a statement that is inaccurate, but was the least worst solution. Well, right now all that the MoS says about double spaces is:

• The number of spaces following the terminal punctuation of a sentence makes no difference on Wikipedia because web browsers condense any number of spaces to just one. (See Sentence spacing#Digital age.) However, editors may use any spacing style they are comfortable with in Wikipedia. Multiple spacing styles may coexist in the same article, and adding or removing a double space is sometimes used as a dummy edit.

How is that inaccurate? A. di M. (formerly Army1987) (talk) 18:43, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I suppose this is not the right place to grumble about this, but I intensely dislike using spaces for dummy edits, because they are extremely difficult to see in a difference. It's fine to use them as long as someone provides a good WP:ES. Sadly, that seems to be the exception rather than the rule.

Grumble over. Si Trew (talk) 18:31, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

This seems completely pointless to me. No matter whether we separate our sentences with one space or two in the text we edit, they appear identical in the browser. The MOS should be about the appearance of the encyclopedia, not about editing conventions. So, I think it should remain silent on this issue. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:12, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

"[B]ecause web browsers condense any number of spaces to just one" is the inaccurate portion of the statement. Most web browsers do. All do not.

However, I'm not advocating a change because of this. Methods of viewing the web that might display HTML spacing as typed are likely used by a very small percentage of people. That's the reason why I agreed to the inaccuracy in the original statement. left as is, it doesn't really make much difference, regardless of accuracy.

The only change I'd be interested in seeing is one that aligns the Wikipedia MoS better with established and reliable general style guides. Since that is not likely to happen in the next decade or so because some people won't let go of their personal preferences, the status quo will do. --Airborne84 (talk) 22:01, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Condensing any sequence of spaces, line feeds and tabs to a single space character except in <pre> tags is part of the HTML specification, so a browser which doesn't do that is broken, and might well have other problems. (Furthermore, I'd not be surprised to find out that MediaWiki doesn't actually deliver two spaces to the browser.) A. di M. (formerly Army1987) (talk) 11:04, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, there are two spaces before the ( in the wikitext of the post above, but only one in the HTML. So I'm replacing "browsers" with "the MediaWiki software". A. di M. (formerly Army1987) (talk) 11:09, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

"The only change I'd be interested in seeing is one that aligns the Wikipedia MoS better with established and reliable general style guides" - Airborne84, could you be more specific about the change you seek, so that other may respond? PL290 (talk) 11:14, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Sure. I'm not sure what's the best way to refer to the "final" or "published" version of a Wikipedia article (after an editor selects "save"). If it were "final version", for example, my recommendation would be something simple such as "Only a single space is used after terminal punctuation in the final version of articles." Other items could be added through editorial consensus, such as a statement clarifying that editors can use any spacing style while editing, or that most browsers render additional spaces in HTML as one, or the "dummy edit" note. I'd say they are extraneous and better addressed in the FAQ section of the MoS talk page and a link to the sentence spacing article, but I also have to be realistic given the past conversations here.

The long term solution would be to create a "Typography" section of the style guide and consolidate all the typographic topics currently scattered throughout the MoS into that section—including this topic. I brought this up once before, [2] but there apparently wasn't much interest. --Airborne84 (talk) 13:37, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

The MoS should not explicitly state a preference for either one or two spaces. Both styles are correct English, and the peculiarities of the html system make this potentially contentious issue nice and moot. Darkfrog24 (talk) 09:58, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes. This is the type of opposition I was talking about. I've seen this statement that "two spaces are correct English" here before. Never has it been accompanied by a reliable supporting reference. In fact, it's never been accompanied by any kind of reference.

"Correct English" is a fleeting concept. There is no single authoritative body in English like the "Real Academia" for Spanish that makes prescriptive language rules. People use writing style guides, reference grammars, and dictionaries, which may vary widely in interpretation. On this typographical matter, they do not vary widely. At Wikipedia, we just collectively refuse to acknowledge this, even in light of the evidence. --Airborne84 (talk) 11:43, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Never, Airborne? Well, just with what I can reach without getting up from my desk, the Bedford Handbook mentions that MLA style allows either one or two spaces and that APA style prefers one but acknowledges that some places allow or even prefer two.

What is correct English does change over time, but at any given time, certain things are correct and others are not. Maybe in twenty more years two spaces will be considered incorrect, but right now, they're correct. Wikipedia's rules should reflect correct English without pushing any separate agenda.

But maybe we do need something more recent than my old Bedford. How about [this]? "As a practical matter, there is nothing wrong with using two spaces after concluding punctuation marks unless an instructor or editor requests that you do otherwise." --MLA Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:27, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's true. If you look above in the thread, you'll see my statment that "I have seen three style guides that leave room for writers to use double sentence spacing in draft work only, but note that final and published work is single sentence spaced." You have found two of those three. If you're reading an APA "preference" for double spacing, that is for draft work only, not the final or published version. They also note that it's easier to read for reviewers of manuscripts (which are double [line] spaced), but do not reference any studies to support that. Please see Sentence spacing#Effects on readability and legibility for the irrelevancy of that statement by APA, which has also been widely criticized (see the Sentence spacing in language and style guides article notes). I cannot ignore the MLA statement, which is further clarified in the print version. It is what it is and it is included in the Sentence spacing in language and style guides article. It is, however, an outlier caveat for MLA users only—allowing room for both uses.

And you keep using the words "correct" and "incorrect". I've never stated that sentence spacing is "correct" and double sentence spacing is "incorrect". To use those terms when discussing the English language is rather irrelevant. I make no such claim. I simply maintain that the vast majority of style guides either indicate that users should use single sentence spacing for non-draft work, or they don't discuss it but provide writing examples that are single sentence spaced. The reliable sources that also state this are referenced in the various sentence spacing articles—so no need to take me at my word. To ignore this evidence and return to the statement that "double spacing is correct" does not help make Wikiedia better.

But ok, lets entertain your position that there could be a "correct" or "incorrect" use of sentence spacing. Since your and my opinions on this matter are irrelevant on Wikipedia (see Personal essay) and this is a matter of typography, let's see what typographers have to say on the matter. For example, Ilene Strisver states "Forget about tolerating differences of opinion: typographically speaking, typing two spaces before the start of a new sentence is absolutely, unequivocally wrong". In her new book, Type Rules, she calls double sentence spacing a "type crime". You can read the positions of other typographers in the above link. If you can find a dissenting opinon from a typographic expert, please add it to the Sentence spacing article. I didn't cherry-pick sources. I just found all the reliable ones that I could. The results were unequivocal. However, I'm sure that you are using the words "right now [double spaces] are correct" because you are backed up with more sources than the two you mentioned (which do not support that statement). Since I must have missed these sources in my research, I would be happy if you could provide these sources to me here or on my talk page so I can improve the article.

Finally, I'll return to my earlier position. I have asked editors here to put aside their personal style preferences and focus on making Wikipedia better. Aligning the MoS here so that it reflects the collective position of style guides is a step in that direction. Arguing against is to ignore the evidence and assume an illogical position. --Airborne84 (talk) 15:29, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

What all that comes down to, Airborne, is that you personally like single spacing more than double spacing. There's nothing wrong with that. However, you're going around saying that anyone who doesn't share your preferences—or who acknowledges that style guides permit two spaces—must be the victim of illogical thinking and that's not okay.

The terms "correct" and "incorrect" are absolutely relevant to any project that instructs its readers in how to write. The Manual of Style is explicitly such a project, and we have a responsibility to provide Wikipedia editors with clear instructions on how to use the English language correctly and effectively.

I've already provided you with more than once source on English sentence spacing. The MLA, we can assume, has already dug through many strident and non-strident typographic experts and it came to the conclusion that it should prefer one space and permit two. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:23, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

...look at it this way. Adding a statement explicitly preferring one space to two 1. is irrelevant to the reader experience because of the way the browsers work the vast majority of the time and 2. will piss people off. We have no reason to add the statement. We have one good reason not to. We shouldn't add the statement. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:30, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

A truly amazing response. In its aftermath, it would be a waste of time to continue this discussion—especially since this isn't the purpose of the talk page. By the way, I actually prefer the appearance of traditional spacing. You would actually have to read the sentence spacing article to find out what that is though. Cheers! --Airborne84 (talk) 22:17, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

My recollection of previous discussion goes like this:

• We pointed out repeatedly that the number of spaces on the edit page doesn't matter because the browser doesn't print the extra space.
• You answered that you were talking about people who code &nbsp;&nbsp;, not simply two spaces, so the browser would print them.
• Someone answered that they couldn't find a significant number of examples of that in Wikipedia, so there is no reason to prohibit something that almost never happens.
• You recently asserted that some browsers do in fact print double spaces.
• The above has been obscured by arguments about what correct English is, but if the above summary is correct, I don't see why it matters how many unprinted spaces we have. The relevant questions are: if you want to prohibit double &nbsp;, can you show us a significant number of examples? And if browsers are the issue, can you name the browsers that display double spaces? I think those are the relevant questions. Otherwise, we're arguing about spaces that nobody but editors will ever see. Art LaPella (talk) 22:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

OK. Shelby Moore, chief developer of the "Cool Page" browser, stated in 2002 that "I even programmed Cool Page to handle the case of 2 spaces following a period so that the browser won't ignore the 2nd space...in 1986 I released WordUp, one the world's first wysiwyg word processors". I'm sure there are other "wysiwyg" (what you see is what you get) browsers out there too, but I'm not an expert in this area. That's two "browsers" anyway, assuming you don't object to a word processing program that allows the creation of a Web page showing all the HTML spaces being called a browser.

I have some more examples in this area from my research in writing the Sentence spacing article, but I think this is sufficient for now. So, there are browser(s) that render the spacing as typed in HTML for the user. Hope that helps. --Airborne84 (talk) 02:07, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't verify that. CoolPage makes this Web page designer, but that isn't a browser (Wikipedia has its own Web page design, but each browser reads it a little differently.) Do they also make a browser, and does anyone still use it? Same for WordUp; creating a Web page isn't the issue because Wikipedia creates it with one or two spaces after the period, but any browser I've tried condenses them into one. This WordUp looks like a blog, so do they make a browser? In summary, you have named some software but I didn't find any browsers that show double spaces after a period, so could you provide a link? Art LaPella (talk) 03:55, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have included this link in the first place. [3] Moore refers to the "browser" that he programmed and discusses how people would view the extra spacing on Web pages. I don't know how many people use it, but it's an example that it's not only possible, but has been used in the last decade. Again, I'm not an expert on this, but this page and this article list quite a few methods of viewing the Web besides Internet Explorer, Firefox, Opera, and Safari. A few aren't very relevant (e.g. made for blind people), but it is useful in showing that there are a lot of different browsers out there. That in itself is not meaningful, but Moore states on this page, "All web browsers use their own methods of rendering web pages," and "Pages (made with any editor) do not display exactly alike in all browsers." I also remember some threads that supported this as I was sorting through some very technical (read: above my head) archived Web discussions while researching for the Sentence spacing and Sentence spacing in the digital age articles. I hope this helps. I have more information buried in my notes, but I think the above is sufficient to show that the blanket statement, "web browsers condense any number of spaces to just one," is inaccurate. --Airborne84 (talk) 04:52, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

You refer to this: "I even programmed Cool Page to handle the case of 2 spaces following a period so that the browser won't ignore the 2nd space." Cool Page and the browser are two different things in that sentence, not synonyms. Yes, there are many different browsers and they don't display alike, but do they show two spaces after a period? I'm not an expert either compared to Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Double space after a period, so I asked there. Art LaPella (talk) 05:54, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

All right. I think that even if you interpret Moore as referring to Cool Page and "browser" as two different things, that just supports the statement more. That would mean that other browsers that viewed a Web page created on Cool Page would display the extra space. It works either way. Good idea about posting it on Village Pump though. Let's see what they say there. --Airborne84 (talk) 12:36, 21 July 2010 (UTC

1) The requirement of replacing several spaces with one is in the HTML standards, so a browser not doing that would be broken and likely to have more serious problems we can't cater; 2) MediaWiki converts double spaces in the wikitext to single spaces in the rendered HTML, so even such a browser would "see" one space. (My post of 11:04, 18 July 2010, above, has two spaces after the first full stop, but try seeing the HTML page source...) A. di M. (formerly Army1987) (talk) 13:45, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

And 3) yes, Moore does "mean that other browsers that viewed a Web page created on Cool Page would display the extra space." But only created on Cool Page, not on Wikipedia. Art LaPella (talk) 14:01, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'm just responding to requests about this. I could be wrong, and very well may be. My above comment still stands -- even if that was the case, I let it go months ago because anyone that would fall under that theoretical situation would be in a very small minority anyway. And I'll finish with the note that I didn't start this thread... There is interest in clarifying the WP:MoS, regardless of HTML's characteristics. However, I don't know that the interest is sufficient. In lieu of aligning the MoS to reflect major style guides, the status quo will do. Cheers! --Airborne84 (talk) 18:01, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Adavis444's adjustments seem reasonable. Any changes that continue to introduce the under-represented topic of typography to the MoS are good ones IMO. I'd prefer a comprehensive section on typography (some major style guides dedicate an entire chapter to this topic), but at the present time, this seems a step in the right direction. --Airborne84 (talk) 02:45, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Square brackets and parentheses

I think it makes sense to use square brackets in quotation when replacing or inserting text (as in "[Principal Skinner] already told me that") but to use round brackets when making a clarification (as in "He (Principal Skinner) already told me that"), but the article currently recommends square brackets even for clarifications (as in "He [Principal Skinner] already told me that". I think round brackets make more sense in this second case, the case of clarifications. Can we have this changed? Gregcaletta (talk) 09:50, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I disagree - we have three types of brackets available - square, round and curly. If we start using round brackets as described above, we loose track of whether the text "Principal Skinner" was part of the original text or a clarification added by the author. Martinvl (talk) 11:04, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. Gregcaletta (talk) 11:37, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Parentheses are a very common element in text, whereas brackets are not. I checked a few online style guides and all use brackets to indicate material that is not part of the original quote for any reason. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 11:48, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Using both is not our editor's invention; it is one way to indicate extremely complex modifications of text (for example, indicating the changes from initial to final draft of some historic document). If clearly indicated beforehand, this is harmless; but it falls under WP:IAR. But I agree round parens should not be used in treating normal text; they invite misunderstanding. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:31, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Just my personal POV, square brackets should be used for any excisison or clarification in quoted text, not round ones. And they should be used nowhere else. I agree it would be confusing otherwise. The only problem arises when the quoted text itself uses square brackets, but that I imagine is quite rare, and editors have then to use judgment in how to deal with that. Si Trew (talk) 18:37, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Si Trew. Tony (talk) 00:17, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Me too. In the real world, the convention is that any words or characters that are changed or added to a direct quotation are surrounded by square brackets. Any other means to designate alterations in a quotation would be ambiguous. Other explanatory information about a quotation or alterations to it may be placed in parenthesis immediately before or after the quotation or after the citation. For example, if all or some square brackets were part of the quotation itself, that should be explained. Another common explanation in parentheses, outside the quotation, is (emphasis added).—Finell 15:12, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Very long quotations

First of all, we should rarely use them. Granted. But much of the text of the Rosetta Stone is quoted in Rosetta Stone, now up for FAC; this seems a reasonable exception. It was both in block quotes and italicized; since it was four paragraphs (in an article of 73K), and fills a screen, the italics served as a useful reminder that one was still reading quoted text after the block indentation ceased to be visible. (link.

Is the absolute rule we have now

For quotations, use only quotation marks (for short quotations) or block quoting (for long ones), not italics

a little too brief?

I agree that single paragraph quotes should be in Roman; that proper formatting should be used; and that applying common sense would solve the problem. But FAC applies MOS literally, without the solvent of common sense. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:49, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The MOS style you quote above is correct; see Purdue OWL for one guide. The quote marks used in the last link are used by pull quotes. I don't believe we have any guidance on the use of pull quotes. The template used is {{cquote}}, which does state "This template should not be used for block quotations in article text." ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 19:06, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Cquote is deprecated for anything except pull quotes at MOS:QUOTE. I've updated Rosetta Stone to use {{quotation}}, which puts a border around. PL290 (talk) 19:15, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

As to italics, see WP:ITALICS. "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." ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 19:06, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a reliable source; especially something that's quoting this page; but {{quotation}} should work. Adding it to the section now. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:25, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

He's not quoting it as a source, he's just pointing out our house style. oknazevad (talk) 22:01, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

And I've taken it out. Although it was only a suggestion, anything in MoS is liable to be taken as imperative. I don't think this has been discussed enough for any editor to make that kind of change with an edit summary "see talk", and let's all go hunt the talk. This is the only mention of using box style and to my mind is too big a recommendation to make without getting proper consensus: since there are no replies to the comment here, I don't think there is any consensus. Just taking BRD here. Si Trew (talk) 22:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC).

Then let us make clear that there is one solution, or the same literalists will be removing any markup but typewriter quotes and plain blocks. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:17, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

{{Quotation}} stands (unremarked on) in Rosetta Stone and its FAC, which would seem to suggest that it is one acceptable solution. I have edited to say no more. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:25, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Where/when was it decided that {{Cquote}} is depreciated? -- PBS (talk) 23:32, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

A long time ago; I've sesn people quoting guidance against it at FAC for years. Probably the usual consensus of two. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:17, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

It would probably be good idea to lay out examples of the different boxes and let editors decide on which one to use. Also there should be a note to the effect that if a citation is placed within the templates strange things can happen which can force the falling back on the use of <blockquote>text</blockquote> -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philip Baird Shearer (talk • contribs)

Nothing wrong with that; included the caution in the tweak. If somebody disagrees, please explain actual disagreement. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:35, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Shortcut

I have proposed a change to {{shortcut}} at Template talk:Shortcut#Positioning. If implemented, it will remove the need to place shortcuts above the header or to redirect to the header instead of the shortcut. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 19:54, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Request for comment: Use of italics in article names

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.

---

Please note that the discussion has now been moved here.

Currently articles titles are not supposed to be formatted to include italics except under the ambiguously termed "special cases". Should each specific WikiProject decide how to format article titles, or should there be one set guideline that is consistently applied throughout Wikipedia? Ωphois 00:03, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

• I treat the MoS as gospel if doing so makes sense and (in my opinion) improves the encyclopaedia. By contrast, I wilfully, publicly ignore it where I think the MoS is hindering or harming the project in that instance. When it comes to article names I think the justification for ignoring has to be absolutely compelling. I'm sure there are cases where italics are necessary, and that's what the MoS is there for. If we leave the decision entirely down to editor discretion, where do we draw the line? Bold? Colour? Size? The whole lot? --WFC-- 00:30, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
  • My main concern is that the use of italics is not consistently applied. For example, the comics project used a consensus of three editors to establish the use of italics for comic article names (and even this is not consistently applied within the project). However, other media (such as movies, television shows, books, etc) do not use italics in the title. Why should comics specifically be italicized, while films are not? This creates a large inconsistency across Wikipedia that I think should be removed. The use of italics should be all or nothing, IMO. Ωphois 00:36, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
• It has to be encyclopedia-wide to avoid inter-project conflicts over something that is rather trivial. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 00:53, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I know, that's why I brought it up here. Ωphois 01:06, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
• Let's set out the problem properly! Currently the guideline says:

It is technically possible to display formatting in titles using DISPLAYTITLE. A template, {{italic title}}, exists to display the title in italics. This should be used only in special cases – currently its only common use is for academic journals, taxonomic genera and species.

This list of exceptions apparently emerged from this debate on a template talk page, where strong pro-italic support for taxonomic genera and species is clear, but there is no consensus, and very little mention, of either academic journals or any other form of copyrightable works such as books, albums, films, paintings, newspapers etc, that are normally italicised in text. To me it is obvious that while the taxonomic genera and species, which have foreign names & evidently a strong convention of italicisation in scientific writing, are one case, the copyrightable works equally form a group that should be treated consistently, and either all italicised in article titles, or none. I strongly favour italicising none of them in article titles. The "academic journals" should be removed from the current guideline text. Johnbod (talk) 01:02, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Comics were also added to that list today by User:Parrot of Doom. Ωphois 01:09, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

All terms normally italicized in running text should be italicized in article titles, as well. That is the most consistent and rational approach.—DCGeist (talk) 01:07, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, as long as these terms are italicized in the body (where readers' attention is focused), I don't care too much if the titles are as well. However, if we do decide to use {{italictitle}}, it should be implemented in all articles where such a measure is necessary, rather than on a WikiProject basis. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:15, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with DCGeist, let's try to be consistent. These article titles are already italicised in the WP:FA and WP:GA listings anyway. What's the argument against consistency? Malleus Fatuorum 01:43, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

That's a good point. Personally, I would be fine with that just as long as it is applied to all appropriate articles. Ωphois 01:47, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Then let's apply it to all appropriate articles, instead of complaining that it's not. Malleus Fatuorum 01:52, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

A consensus is needed before applying something this big. Ωphois 01:54, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not big at all, it's trivial. There's no wiki-wide consistency in the way that articles are cited, for instance, or the way that dates are presented, or in many other things. Why is this particular mole hill so important? Malleus Fatuorum 03:12, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

It might be trivial, but it would probably require renaming tens of thousands of articles if all are italicised, or probably a few hundred if none are. Only 2/6 of a random sample from Category:Biochemistry journals actually had italicised titles. To me it just looks silly to italicize article titles on paintings, novels, newspapers and films. This is very rarely done in book or article titles in the real world, even when they are italicised in text. Johnbod (talk) 03:48, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

It would be a great task, and hopefully a bot would be able to do it. If not, I would understand why some would object to it. But even in that case, I hope that they, like you Johnbod, would agree that it should be consistently used (either all italicized, or none at all). Ωphois 03:55, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

It needn't be a big task - we could add it to the relevant templates (film, novel, comic book title, etc. - it already is for the last one) and this would automatically format the relevant articles. Adding them in by hand is always going to result in inconsistencies (even with a robot doing a lot of the grunt work). (Emperor (talk) 01:08, 25 July 2010 (UTC))

I would also like to point out that articles such as short stories or episodes are formatted in an article with quotes but not in the article title itself. Should this also be considered, or combined with the italics argument? Ωphois 01:59, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Many aspects of MoS are not a big deal but they are minor adjustments that can greatly improve readability and understanding depending on the instance. Italics would be nice for ship names. I agree the titles should mirror how the subject is resented in the text. Does the italic template work or do the italic marks work for disambiguation pages (Tittle (whatever))? edit: er... pages that have a disambiguation.Cptnono (talk) 03:19, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

That's a subtley different question. The underlying issue here is the distinction between how an article title is stored in wikipedia'a database and how it is displayed. Malleus Fatuorum 03:16, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it would be needed for a disambiguation page, since a single name or phrase can have different meanings that use different formatting. Ωphois 03:24, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I think I misunderstood what you were asking. Anyways, yes, a specific part of a title can be italicized. See Eagle (comic). Ωphois 03:31, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Sweet. Sorry for not being clear enough by the way.Cptnono (talk) 03:35, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to take away italization (sp?) from the projects who have it now, but barring that, I'd like to let individual projects decide. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:58, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

But that can create conflict. Think of articles that fit multiple projects, such as comic-based films. If the comic project accepts italics and starts wide implementation, but the film project disagrees, then who should have priority? Ωphois 04:01, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment As I see it, we have three options:

1. Refrain from using any italic article titles, on grounds of absolute consistency;
2. Avoid their use except where successfully argued for by an editor or editors (and record the justification for each exception in the history of the relevant guideline);
3. Encourage their use wherever Wikipedia would italicize the title in normal article text.

I don't think we should allow our judgement to be swayed by suggestions that it would be a big task to update existing articles. There are plenty of willing hands, and much potential to automate using scripts and bots. The matter is one of style. My own personal choice would be option 3. PL290 (talk) 06:46, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

There are several other choices. For example, the biological species etc can be treated separately from the copyrightable works - I think they should be. Titles that would be in italics because they are foreign terms (which is why the species are) might also all be italicised. But we should, I think, be consistent within these large groups. Johnbod (talk) 16:46, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree entirely. Change the guideline and the articles will follow. It is only a question of how long it will take, and as far as I know, we're in no hurry. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:01, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

A Comment and a Question (equally uneducated):

1. The point of using italics in the middle of prose indicates that these words are not part of the flow but The Name of Something That Has Already Been Created. At the top of the page, what's the point?! The words are sitting there on their own. The use of capitals differentiates between List of words in English and A List of Words in English (book).
2. In the font used by WP, are the italics actually italics or just slopey letters?

Well, that's quite enough from me almost-instinct 09:44, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Re. point 1, that's an interesting point. And a related point is, if we align with what's done in running prose, would we also want to see quotation marks for shorter works? That would presumably necessitate a lot of redirects from unquoted titles! But it's not unthinkable. EDIT: presumably not, actually, since this is just about rendering! Remember too that we would use such renderings in lists, not just in running prose, so there's more to it than simply making a distinction from surrounding text. Re. point 2, see, for example, Macbeth (although I imagine either is possible using suitable css, so that shouldn't be considered an issue. Note, incidentally, that Macbeth, like many single-word titles, does not enable us to differentiate by use of capitals.) PL290 (talk) 10:38, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

The use of quotation marks would be interesting: for consistency would we have to have

• High Windows (the collection of poetry)
• "High Windows" (the poem)
• High windows (a redirect to an article on Velux-style windows)?

Personally, I think this shows that this could be the thin end of an unnecessary wedge almost-instinct 11:20, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

My issue is that italicizing comics is one edge of a style guide, but there are many that don't use italics for books and similar works. Others use underlines, others even use quotes. If we're to apply italics, we are essentially mandating one style over another, which we've tried not to do in virtually every other aspect of Wikipedia. Secondly, most applications of italics I've been seeing are hidden away in templates, violating the WYSIWYG principle we should be adhering to for usability and ease of editing purposes. Unless this could be consistently applied in a top-level way, it just opens up more headaches. Leave all the styling to the lead and body. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 13:00, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

• My preference is for no italics in article titles (with the possible exception of taxonomic names where it seems a strong consensus exists for italicization and it seems to be consistently applied). It simply creates another unnecessary area of confusion. Removing {{italic title}} from the film, comic, album, etc. articles currently using it would probably not be a large task, whereas applying it to all articles of those types would be a rather monumental task. Another point of consideration is this: Titles are only italicized within running text, to distinguish the title of a work from the words around it. Italics are generally not used on the work itself, for example on the cover of a book or album or on a film poster. Similarly they are not necessary in article titles. Remember also that the text at the top of a Wikipedia page is the title of the Wikipedia article, not the title of the work it discusses. --IllaZilla (talk) 14:40, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Reminder: Please remember that the main question being asked here is if one guideline should be consistently applied, or the decision left up to WikiProjects. Please try to include this in your responses. Ωphois 15:07, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

The trouble is the guideline is itself not really consistent. Do you mean the version before comics were added, or after? Johnbod (talk) 16:46, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I am referring to the use of italics in ALL article titles. Ωphois 16:51, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I concur with the points raised about the true purpose of italicizing titles of long-form creative works in running prose; they set them apart from regular text to emphasize the uniqueness of the title. However, those italics are a styling convention, not an inherent property of the title. In other words, the title isn't always written with italics. Underlining is done instead when handwritten, and used to be common for typewriters. Some place titles of long-form works in quotes. (Though, frankly, that grates on me.) There's no compelling reason, in my mind, to italicize the title of a Wikipedia article on a creative work, as it isn't in the middle of running text that can become blended together. Tables and lists are a bit fuzzier, as there is still a need to set off the text to certain extent, so there's no real harm about including italics there.

On the other hand, taxonomical names, by strong convention of them being "foreign-language" terms (though most are made up), are inherrently italicized, and should be italicized in titles.

That said, I somewhat see why the Comics Wikiproject may have decided to use italics; the number of comic books, particularly long-running, ongoing superhero series, that simply use the (code)name of the hero as the title of the series. In such cases, italics may be the only thing that prevents confusion. Still, consistency with the rest of the encyclopedia should be maintained. As I don't think the titles of articles on creative works should be italicized, I believe the practice by the Comics Wikiproject should end. oknazevad (talk) 15:17, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. After having looked at several paper encyclopedias and dictionaries (including Britannica, New World, Collier's, The Grove Dictionary of Opera, The Film Encyclopedia, and others) it appears that the format used in published encyclopedias/dictionaries never uses italicized titles for its atricles/entries. They likewise do not underline titles or place them in quotes. The titles of artistic works, be they music, literature, plays, films, paintings, comics etc. are not ilalicized. Species and genus names are also not italicized in the heading, nor are any Latin or other foreign language words. Other commonly italicized words, such as court cases, are also not italicized in headings. This seems to be a universally applied stylistic format for encyclopedias and dictionaries. I agree that consistancy across the encyclopedia is the best policy. Inevitably the inconsistant application of italicized titles, both in the rules and in reality (people forgetting to italicize the right articles or italicizing the wrong ones), will result in time waisting clean up for everyone and the obligatory edit wars. The best option would be to simply remove the option to have an italicized title. It saves on having to clean up messes, mediate fights, and creates consistancy here and with other well established encyclopedias.4meter4 (talk) 15:25, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

• Further comment. Specialist science encyclopedias do tend to use other formats, but not consistantly. For example, Concise encyclopedia biology By Thomas Scott gives the English name of the organism in bold followed by the species and genus name in itallics (example: Aardwolf, Proteles cristata). A counter example would be all of the Audubon Society publication which have their titles on two lines like this:

Aardwolf
(Proteles cristata)

It appears that there are a variety methods used in science publications. However, since wikipedia is not solely concerned with science, I suggest we adopt the no italicized format used by the more general Encyclopedias.4meter4 (talk) 16:08, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

• In response to Ophois, per my above comment my preference is for one guideline, worded clearly in the MoS and consistently applied. Individual WikiProjects' style guidelines may clarify and complement the MoS, but cannot override or supercede it. --IllaZilla (talk) 15:39, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Agreed with Illa. Further balkanization of this issue will not help. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:53, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

If it's italicized in the main text, then the title should be italicized as well. Simple. As for academic journals, we're updating them over time (most non-itacized entries are old articles). New ones are almost always italicized. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:10, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

• What 4meter4 said. Well, without the little typos. (edit conflict)
  • Having italics for our heading entries is/would be unique among reference works, AIUI. I know we're already unique (or were, uh, mostly) by being an electronic encyclopedia, or by building our work from input of everybody, but we should follow some common conventions of encyclopedias to keep it as accessible as possible, and this is one place where conformance makes sense.
  • If we italicize American Pie in the title of the film's article "for consistency", then we have to add quotation marks to the title of the article "American Pie" about the song. Italics for the American Pie album, nothing for the American Pie film series. The ugliness of quotes will outweigh the gratification of seeing Escherichia coli neatly italicized at the top of articles.
  • Besides which, it will be complicated, messy, and people will get it wrong by mistake, and some will see it as a clever way to vandalize. We'll spend more time fixing things, and we do more than enough of that already.
  • Now we have the "consistency" question, because those wacky Tree of Life people like their genera and species in italics, and have settled in to their somewhat recent conversion to italicized titles. I understand and respect their view (although I think they didn't all agree), because to most of them, genera are just always italicized. However, I think the consistency argument is important, and the article title doesn't need italicizing to tell you it's a spider, because it's not a spider, it's an encyclopedia article. Inside the article, which is about a spider, then, yes, the species name definitely ought to be in italics. But the title of the article labelling the article doesn't need italics any more than the title of a book labelling the book (on the front cover, the spine, or on the title page) needs to tell you it's a book. Mentions of the book title, or article title, or Latin-style genus elsewhere should get italicized.
  • I'm not involved in any WikiProjects, so maybe I'm blind to some important issues, but I don't understand the weight Wikipedians place on projects. There's often a kind of hushed tone when we talk about the military history people, or the film project. I don't see why it's appropriate for such projects to decide what colors data tables should be, or that italics are good (mandatory?) for comics, while the English literature people must do without. Add to that the problem of cross-project articles, and I think we're just developing new areas where we can argue. Let the WikiProjects do what they do best, develop content and templates to improve the addition and display of that content, and establish guidelines for what info should or should not be in "their" articles.

No italics in titles, Wikipedia wide. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 16:18, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

• I think that wikipedia article titles do not need to be italicized or have quotes impelmented in them. If it were to be put into effect, then there would have to be a large amount of editing to conform to this rule change to the affected pages, and it wouldn't be necessary. There are larger concerns than changing the title format, and making a rule to do that all over wikipedia would be an inconvenient inflation of that concern. I've been very used to wikipedia articles not having italics or quotes put in them, and consistency for wikipedia article titles not having format modifications would be something that I support. Backtable _{Speak to me}^{concerning my deeds.} 19:43, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

• I think that there is a very significant difference between rendering an article title in italics and enclosing it in quotation marks, in that there is no italic mark key on your keyboard, but there is a quotation mark key. I don't much care whether article titles are in italics or not; my view is quite simply that for consistency if they're italicised (i.e., not wrapped up in any padding characters like quotation marks) in an article, then they ought to be italicised in the article title. I am supremely indifferent to what printed encyclopedias may or may not do, as the printed page imposes different contraints than does a web page. I will point out, however, that some dictionaries– Collins is one example– do italicise entries for certain foreign words such as en suite. In any event, I doubt that the Tree of Life folks will be persuaded to give up the italicisation of their article titles no matter what is said here, so why not go with the flow, in the interest of consistency? Malleus Fatuorum 20:25, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

• I hardly consider the relatively small group of editors of the "Tree of Life" persuasion a flow. More like a small drip out of the faucet that needs a plumber here at MOS to stop the problem. If we implement policy here they will have to comply or risk getting blocked by admins. WikiProjects do not have the authority to ignore or change policy. On the counter side, I can tell you that the music/theatre/and literature projects will all kick up a major fuss if we try and implement italicized articles. Most of the projects in those areas of interest have already decided to not use italics for the very reasons I gave above.4meter4 (talk) 20:48, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Um, the MoS also has no authority to decide policy. In fact the MoS itself is only a guideline. Consensus at the MoS is every bit as much a limited consensus as that from a WikiProject. If you want to get a policy you need to go to the Village Pump. --Trovatore (talk) 21:24, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

True, but per Wikipedia:Consensus, "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right." This discussion is community-wide. If we get a large enough consensus, it will be more enduring than a single WikiProject's decision. Ωphois 21:35, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

The problem with that is that the MoS regulars are not in fact "the broader community". The MoS is in effect a WikiProject itself. So no, as to your last point, that's factually incorrect. This discussion is not community-wide, no more so than one at a WikiProject. --Trovatore (talk) 21:40, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

If this is counted as a WikiProject, it is still a representation of "the broader community" more than any other project. Ωphois 21:44, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

No, it isn't. --Trovatore (talk) 21:45, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, you are entitled to your own opinion. But technically any policy/guideline is a "project". So if the TV Project decides to ignore Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, then you are saying they can? Ωphois 21:46, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Of course not. NPOV is policy (actually it's beyond policy; it's a pillar. But the MoS is not empowered to create policy. Nor should it be; it's largely in the control of a small group of regulars who are especially interested in stylistic matters. Hard to see any way it wouldn't be. --Trovatore (talk) 21:56, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Anyways, let's see how it goes here. If there is a great consensus one way or another, it will only help the case at the Village Pump. Ωphois 22:04, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

• IOW, if the flow is headed in the wrong direction, we shouldn't go with it. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 20:54, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

• OK, as to the merits: My intuition is that names of artistic works should probably not be italicized, but I wouldn't fight it if the editors who are especially familiar with those areas thought otherwise. I would probably be against a general decision to italicize all foreign terms (e.g. I think laurea should remain in Roman type). However, I think Escherichia coli should absolutely stay in italics — looks much better that way. I see no need for the same choices to be applied to such widely disparate subject matters. --Trovatore (talk) 22:21, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

• As the person who's probably indirectly responsible for this argument, my opinion is simple. We either italicise all article titles where the subject is normally italicised in the body, or we "ban" the practice outright, and all article titles are rendered identically. Parrot of Doom 22:45, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure it's quite that simple, as with my example of en suite above. I don't have the resolution to go looking through the Tree of Life discussions, but species names are generally in some kind of doggerel Latin, which is obviously a foreign language unless you're a Catholic, and so should be italicised wherever they appear. I've come around to the view that only foreign language article titles should be in italics. Malleus Fatuorum 22:59, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
    • I think that's still too one-size-fits-all. My main objection personally is when people try to take stylistic ideas developed outside of science, and apply them naively to science articles. Frequently that runs counter to useful practices that have evolved inside the scientific discipline and that serve to promote clarity in that discipline.
    • So bottom line, I really don't care what the outcome is for comic books. But I would be strongly opposed to trying to impose it on biology articles whose titles are binomial names. --Trovatore (talk) 23:05, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

• There needs to be a set guideline, and individual WikiProjects should not be able to suggest any guidelines that directly contradict (or any other community guideline). I personally think the italics should be dropped on ALL titles as they are the titles of the actual Wikipedia articles, not the titles of the books, movies, etc nor are they the actual items being talked about with the latin terms that managed to get limited consensus for italics previously. The Color Purple is the Wikipedia article about the novel The Color Purple. Title/latin italics should only be done in actual prose. The template needs to be deleted and whatever flaw in the software that allowed its use corrected. Previous RfC Template_talk:Italic_title#RFC:_Should_this_be_used? -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 22:57, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

• My opinion, such as it is, is that if the subject of an article, if rendered in italics in the body of the article should be rendered as such in the title of the article where technically possible. Since the template can do it, then the articles should be set up that way. As for other side discussions above concerning quotation marks, etc, those situations can be discussed if a technical solution is developed to render the title differently than how the article is titled in the database. We already have a template that provides a solution to the situation where iPod is stored under the article title IPod, but rendered as iPod at the title of the article. Imzadi 1979 → 23:14, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
• Okay, it's requested so here's my comment. I feel that article title italicization should be applied on an all-or-none basis. If the article title for Triceratops is italicized, then so too should Jumper (a novel), Barney & Friends (a television series), USS Emily (a US naval steamship), etc. Personally, I prefer non-application at all, but if it's to be implemented in some cases, it should be applied in all cases. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 23:42, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Exactly why should it be all or none? A lot of people have said that but I haven't seen much in the way of argument for it. The italicization of Triceratops is for a completely different motive, and conveys a completely different thing, than the italicization of Barney & Friends. It is not clear why a decision on one needs to apply to the other. --Trovatore (talk) 23:47, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

• Clear arguments have been made for "all". There might not be "much in the way of argument", because the case is very simple and straightforward: Logical consistency is one of the hallmarks of good style. If some terms normally italicized in running text are to have their articles titles italicized (which is, in itself, a logically consistent choice), then all terms normally italicized in running text should have their articles titles italicized.—DCGeist (talk) 00:22, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it suffices for "logical consistency" to have the same choice within a broad area, for things that are done for the same reason. I don't think we need the same stylistic choices in science articles as in comic-book articles, especially when the stylistic element in question (italicization) has quite different meanings in the two contexts. --Trovatore (talk) 00:39, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to vote for italics and quotes based on how it would be in the article, or else nothing. I like the idea of quotes for media works that use them on how they are in running prose. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 00:13, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Since the titles at the tops of articles are merely labels, not part of the articles themselves, there is no reason for the formatting. We should just leave the titles in plain roman. This is the style followed by many publications. For example, the Merriam-Webster dictionary on my desk does not italicize the labels for the entries "Homo sapiens", "joie de vivre", "aloe vera", "Triceratops". — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:04, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

When they started italicizing taxonomic names, it looked strange to me. But now that I'm used to it I definitely prefer it. --Trovatore (talk) 01:07, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Who is "they"? The dictionary I have does italicize them in the text of the entries, but the labels are never italicized as far as I can tell. Which makes sense to me, because the labels are just labels. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:12, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

"They" being WP biology editors, I guess. --Trovatore (talk) 01:16, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Move this RFC to Wikipedia talk:Article titles

The subject of this RFC is whether to change part of Wikipedia:Article titles. That page is policy, which takes precedence over guidelines (the MOS is a guideline). I believe that reflects a judgment that the way Wikipedia titles articles is so important to the encyclopedia that a policy is required to assure consistency. Therefore, this RFC must be moved to Wikipedia talk:Article titles. Nothing we say here can have any effect there. On the other hand, we can all go over there.

The current policy that we are discussing is the last paragraph of Wikipedia:Article titles#Special characters and formatting:

Do not apply formatting: 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. (See italics and formatting restrictions.)

The exception for "special cases" is too vague for a policy or guideline, in my opinion. Also, in real world publishing, the use of italic for names of books, journals, and some other types of titles is just as widespread as for genera and species. Worse, this policy endorses WP:Naming conventions (technical restrictions)#Italics and formatting, which is a guideline. That guideline adds journals and comics to the "special cases". Comics but not books? These "special cases" aren't sufficiently special to be the sole departures from a policy that otherwise prohibits italic in article titles.

In my opinion, there are two policies worth considering:

1. Italic is used in article titles the same way it is used in text.
2. Italic is never used in article titles.

Unusually (for me), I don't have a strong preference between these two, although I leaning toward #1. I'll have more to say when the RFC is moved. Since we hopefully have learned something from the discussion thus far, I suggest that the new RFC be started fresh, rather than copying everything above—but that's for everyone else to decide.—Finell 04:47, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

There is at least one other choice which should be considered, which the various debates so far suggest would get the most support, or at least the fewest objections. This is to italicise biological taxa, or all foreign terms, but not italicise the titles of copyrightable works. This arguably best reflects normal practice in academic writing too. Johnbod (talk) 10:47, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

How would I go about moving it? Ωphois 05:35, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

If you do move it, please leave a link here, which you did not do last time you moved the discussion! Johnbod (talk) 10:47, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with every word of Finell's (except I do have a strong preference for #1). Ophois, simply initiate a new RFC at Wikipedia talk:Article titles; note in the introduction that a preliminary discussion was held here but has been centralized and started anew there; and leave a note here directing interested parties there.—DCGeist (talk) 07:21, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Please note that the discussion has now been moved here. Ωphois 15:09, 25 July 2010 (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.

WP:COMMONALITY

The section on commonality has been cited as a reason for changing one variant of spelling to another. Can we get some views here please? I personally think it's clear enough, but two editors are insisting on changing words like 'organisation' into 'organization' ostensibly because the -z- form is "more accessible" per the wording of the section. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:31, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

In BrEng? No, if "s" was there, it should not be changed to "z", nor the converse. Tony (talk) 03:34, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I was not aware that there are two editors going around changing words like "organisation" into "organization". Tut tut. Who are these strawmen people? On the other hand, I am well aware of one editor who has been going around changing words like "organization" into "organisation" under the misapprehension that the former is not proper British English. At any rate, here is my position:

For many verbs and verb derivatives that take -ize in American English, authoritative sources clearly establish that either -ize or -ise is proper style in British English. The spirit of WP:COMMONALITY thus encourages the use of -ize in British English articles on Wikipedia. However, our general principle of article stability is paramount, so if an article's style is well-established with either -ize or -ise, it should not be changed. But for new articles or for ones where a predominant style has yet to be established, yes, the commonality principle guides us to use -ize. DocKino (talk) 03:55, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe anyone is arguing that -iza-, -ize-, or -izi- words are not 'British English'. I would just like to make the distinction that what WP articles on the subject consider these forms to be Oxford English. The argument which was put at the Lennon page was NOT whether Oxford English should be used, but that, apparently, WP:COMMONALITY could be used as grounds for eradicating -isa-, -ise-, -isi- words because these are not sufficiently "accessible". THAT it is that argument I want a discussion on. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 04:31, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

To answer Tony's question, nobody has done any digging about which word form existed in the earliest versions of the article. But the spelling in most WP articles is often an inconsistent mish-mash of American and British spelling, and these need to be rendered consistent, per WP:MOS. The present argument is over whether WP:COMMONALITY trumps WP:ENGVAR, as DocKino is asserting, or whether the two parts of the guideline merely deal with different aspects of style. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 04:41, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

"WP:COMMONALITY trumps WP:ENGVAR"? That's yet another strawman you've created, Ohconfucius. I gather you find it easier to debate those than you do your fellow editors. I understand...

I do not contend that WP:COMMONALITY trumps WP:ENGVAR. As the very structure of our Manual of Style should make apparent to all, WP:COMMONALITY is fully compatible with WP:ENGVAR. I have stated very, very clearly that in those articles where the -ise style of British English spelling is well established, it should not be changed (unless, of course, a new consensus is arrived at through discussion). Once again, my position is this: The fact is that both -ize and -ise systems are proper British English and acceptable under WP:ENGVAR for articles on topics for which British English is appropriate. For such articles where neither the -ize nor the -ise style has been established, the spirit of WP:COMMONALITY encourages the use of -ize.

By the way, Ohconfucius, your comment here, suggests that you do not appreciate the distinction between the spirit of a principle and its letter. The articulation of a given principle rarely specifies every case to which it might be relevant, but where the general intent of a principle is clear, it is our right—even our responsibility—to interpret it for its applicability to potentially relevant cases. You insist, "If it was intended that Oxford English were to have primacy, then such preference MUST be explicit." That is very simply wrong. Our lives at this moment would be easier, yes, if that preference were made explicit, but we can interpret the principle to cover this matter based on its general intent just as we can interpret its applicability to the many, many other relevant matters that are not made explicit in its brief description: WP:COMMONALITY certainly encourages, say, finding a substitute for the verb to table because that can mean very different and confusing things in British English vs. American English. (Your comment at Talk:John Lennon also suggests, oddly, that you believe that "Oxford English spelling" is somehow not "British English spelling". You've gotten over that, right?) DocKino (talk) 05:09, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I would kindly remind you stick to the issues, and avoid personalising the matter with your attacks and your patronising tone. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 05:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

You personalized the matter by falsely and needlessly claiming that "two editors are insisting on changing words like 'organisation' into 'organization'" and by willfully misrepresenting my position. For the sake of focusing on the substance of the debate, I forgive you. Now please respond to the substantive argument I have laid out:

• Both -ize and -ise spelling systems are proper British English.
• Where one or the other system is well-established in an article, it should not be changed, given the general principle of stability.
• Where one or the other is not yet well-established in an article, -ize is favored according to the spirit of the principle of commonality.—DocKino (talk) 05:28, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

• It's preposterous - how could I have 'personalised' it when I didn't even make a reference to your identity? We only disagree on the third point. You may not have seen my script, but it does cater for use of Oxford English. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 05:34, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

• "Preposterous"? Oh, so you didn't very clearly mean me? Then tell us, who are these two miscreants?
• A-n-d...back to the substance. The description of your script looks unobjectionable, but the description is inaccurate. It claims that "it leaves -iza-, -ize-, and -izi- words untouched", but that is not so. Let's look at what the script did on the Featured Article Sex Pistols: It correctly changed breakup to break-up throughout. It also changed 14 -iza-, -ize-, and -izi- words. (And, as a side note, the unavoidable flaw in the script that the description does accurately identify came into play: colored was changed to coloured inside a quotation from a published source.) DocKino (talk) 05:50, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

• It appears that you haven't personally experienced the tool, and I invite you to try it. Please don't complain at me unless it was a script bug. From the diff, it appears the script was converting 'z-words' as intended - as indicated by the {{EngvarB}} template at the top. If the conversion to Oxford variant had been chosen, there would be a {{EngvarOx}} template at the top. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 06:07, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
• I would also invite you to Read The Manual with care, because it seems that you are eager to jump on me for what my script does without fully understanding what it is supposed to do, and the responsibility of the user making the edit with it. FYI: the doc specifically states that words in single or double quotes will be converted. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 06:12, 28 July 2010 (UTC) [FYI, please take a breath and take a moment to read what I actually write: "the unavoidable flaw in the script that the description does accurately identify". DocKino (talk) 06:29, 28 July 2010 (UTC)]

(after edit conflict)

OK. I see what happened with this application of the script on Sex Pistols. Radiopathy set it to "British English" function when the predominant style of the article was "Oxford English". This is not entirely his fault—some of that goes to you and some of that goes to the article's engaged editors...i.e., me.

On your side: Differentiating in the script between "Oxford English" and "British English" functions is a mistake. The names of the functions confuses the fact that Oxford English is British English. Script-runners working on many B.E.-related articles will naturally tend to choose the "British English" function for all, given those two choices. You need to come up with different function names that compel script-runners to take a closer look at the B.E.-themed articles they want to run the script on.

On my side: The article was predominantly, but not entirely in Oxford English style. Of 19 words that could go either way, 14 were in -ize style and 5 in -ise style. That's a clear predominance, but the fact is that the one word in the lead section that could go either way was in -ise style. If Radiopathy had actually eye-balled the article (given the nature of his sweep and its effect on other mature articles, I am sure he did not), it would have been reasonable for him to assume it was not in Oxford style. That's on me.

But that's just one article. Your script can affect many articles, and many British English articles are clearly and properly (though not always perfectly) in Oxford style. If it is not possible to design a script that recognizes which is the predominant style in an article, you must at least change the function names so one style does not sound "less British" than the other. DocKino (talk) 06:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

• I'm glad some semblance of calmness seems to have been restored. If my doc doesn't make it sufficiently clear, then of course it should be clarified. I'm open to suggestions about renaming the buttons, but I tend to feel that, if clarification is indeed needed, there needs to be clarification at British English, Oxford English (which incidentally is only a redirect) and/or American and British English spelling differences, all of which my doc already links to. However, I believe that it is already the majority view that 'British English' spelling generally does not use the 'z-words' in favour of 's-words', but that under the Oxford variant, 'z-words' are acceptable. I'm open to suggestions as to how to further reduce any ambiguity in the script buttons. I'd also like to reiterate my view that preponderance of one form over another is not and should not be an invitation to change all occurrences to the dominant form, nor would it be acceptable for an article to be deliberately diluted with 'z-words' and then stealthily aligned to OED spelling. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 06:46, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

There are three substantive points here I can address.

(1) "I believe that it is already the majority view that 'British English' spelling generally does not use the 'z-words' in favour of 's-words', but that under the Oxford variant, 'z-words' are acceptable."

I'm not sure how your claim about the "majority view" might be objectively verified in this case. What I do know is that both Oxford and Chambers clearly establish that either -ize or -ise is proper style in British English, and both give -ize first.

(2) "preponderance of one form over another is not and should not be an invitation to change all occurrences to the dominant form"

I fervently disagree. Consistency is a bottom line of good style. I know it, you should know it, and our Manual of Style says it.

(3) "nor would it be acceptable for an article to be deliberately diluted with 'z-words' and then stealthily aligned to OED spelling"

I agree. While I firmly believe that the intent of WP:COMMONALITY clearly does favor -ize, stealthy dilution and realignment is not what we are about here. If there is no compelling reason to change an appropriate and established style, it should not be changed. If there is no well-established style, then the process of applying a consistent one should be open and transparent. DocKino (talk) 07:08, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

It is a well-known absurdity that at least one BrEng dictionary (the OED), still insists on putting the z as first spelling; yet British usage (and that of five of the seven ancestral anglophone countries) has firmly swung to the s since the 1970s. It is now generally accepted, except among the elderly and The Times newspaper. In Australia, the z is rare, only just tolerated, and is increasingly regarded as "American". Tony (talk) 07:21, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I concur. Many Brits also consider 'z-words' to be American, not just Aussies. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 07:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

These are anecdotal views. Thank you for them. But as far as the pan-English Wikipedia is concerned, do you not think the commonality principle is relevant here...and favors -ize? DocKino (talk) 07:28, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

As to preponderance becoming the deciding factor, it would theoretically makes any given article easier to align if one were to do it manually. It is not reason to be so when there is a tool such as mine which can do the job in half a second. I believe that the onus should be upon those who want Oxford spelling to be adopted overall in any given article to demonstrate that the first significant contributor - a rule we use elsewhere (MOSNUM, I believe)- a non-American, used that form. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 07:33, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Ahhhhhhh.... Now it comes out. You want nationality tests for contributors. You wicked, wicked little git. DocKino (talk) 07:38, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll presume you're cajoling with that last line, and not take offense. I have previously stated that, due to the nature of WP, spelling inconsistencies reign. It is one of the reasons why I wrote the script. WP:ENGVAR and WP:STRONGNAT (both sections of WP:MOS) state that articles should adopt an English variant which is most strongly related to the nationality of the subject, notwithstanding the fact that American editors edit British articles. There is also a convention that, as far as date formats go, it's the first major contributor which defines what date format any given article adopts in the absence of a strong national tie. In order to forestall the conversion by stealth, the first major contributor rule could be used. I would rather not for the faults in the method which you quite correctly pointed out, which make it unworkable. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 08:02, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I had thought Chambers was a respected British dictionary. Is it not? Is it as absurd as that authoritative, exacting, esteemed absurd, ridiculous, laughable Oxford? DocKino (talk) 07:38, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

• Gosh, the wit! Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 08:04, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

• I was inquiring of Tony, who raised the matter, you wicked, wicked little git. DocKino (talk) 08:11, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh PoisonConfucius, you wrote, "I believe that the onus should be upon those who want Oxford spelling to be adopted overall in any given article to demonstrate that the first significant contributor - a rule we use elsewhere (MOSNUM, I believe)- a non-American, used that form." The first significant contributor's nationality must be established?! That is a wicked, venomous suggestion. Do you retract it or do you not? Very simple question. DocKino (talk) 08:11, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

• I would refer you to m:DICK. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 08:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I have no doubt you are very familiar with that page, you sick little git. Once again, you have made a wicked, nauseating suggestion that there be a nationality test for first significant contributors to determine whether a certain spelling style shall be applied to an article. Do you retract that filth or do you not? DocKino (talk) 08:29, 28 July 2010 (UTC)