WT:WikiProject Books

I wanted to open up a discussion I had with {{user link|Srnec}} about italicizing works such as Olomouc Law Book. Srnec asserts that this is a manuscript and the title does not get italicized. However, I was taught that the titles of standalone works (not chapters or parts) should always be italicized. In my own search, I could not find a standard for the distinction between the treatment of titles for manuscripts and books, and Srnec did not provide me with one when asked. Wikipedia article titles on various works from the period are not standardized either, and MOS:ITALICTITLE only distinguishes against italicizing "pre-modern religious texts or scriptures".

My gut tells me works like this should be italicized, but I would be happy to learn something. Regardless, a standard should be put into place to reduce inconsistencies. Mbdfar (talk) 12:16, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

• {{ping|User:SMcCandlish}} I actually just read through a write-up you did in 2015 at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Titles_of_works/Archive_2#Fairy_tales,_myths,_folktales that I wish I found before. It does address and clarify my issue. Is there somewhere I can read more about this rule, or is it just one of those unwritten conventions? As it is not intuitive, is there any way to integrate this information into Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Titles_of_works? Mbdfar (talk) 12:26, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
• :I looked for some style guides for writers on medieval topics: [https://www.medievalacademy.org/page/StyleSheet] [https://deremilitari.org/journal/jmmh-style-guide/] [http://www.pims.ca/wp-content/uploads/htmleditor/pims-style-guide-2019-june.pdf]. It looks like manuscripts, as in the singular physical objects (like Ellesmere Chaucer) are not italicized and are cited with their shelf mark, whereas the texts found within manuscripts (like Canterbury Tales) are italicized like any published book. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 14:01, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::For clarity, that would mean that Olomouc Law Book is correctly non-italicized, because the article appears to be about the single object (known by a library shelfmark) rather than the contents it published. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 14:06, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::Thank you for those guidelines. Srnec did mention that distinction during our discussion, but I have trouble understanding the nuance of it. If the article discussed more about the contents of the book, would it be appropriate to italicize it? More broadly, in what instance would you italicize the article title of a single work that has never been copied? I'm unsure how to decouple the physical entity itself from the contents within. Mbdfar (talk) 14:10, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::Take a look at Exeter Book and The Wanderer, a poem only ever found in the Exeter Book. If you’re writing about a single object which can only ever be in one place, that’s a manuscript: no italics. If you’re writing about a series of words which could be republished in a modern edition, that’s a text: italics. (Or for short poems like "The Ruin", quotes.) Usually one does wish to discuss the text contained by a manuscript but that doesn’t make the object itself stop being an object. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 14:23, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::Also compare Pearl Manuscript and Pearl (poem). The existence of a shelfmark (like MS Cotton Nero A X/2) is diagnostic of a manuscript, which can only be on one shelf at a time. Whereas modern editions/translations are diagnostic of a text, which can be copied. On that front it might be helpful to recognize that modern editions/translations are also “copies” of a text. Virtually all wiki-notable texts will have copies in that sense, and it is by being copied in a modern edition that many of these texts acquire their names. So the other diagnostic criteria is “what does my source say?” ~ L 🌸 (talk) 14:47, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::::That is very helpful, I really appreciate you taking the time to break this all down for me. There are a thousand what-if rabbit holes that I want to go down about how to refer to digitized copies of works from this period and photograph-only books, but I'll stop it here. I absolutely agree with abiding by how the title is presented by the sources. Thank you again. Mbdfar (talk) 14:57, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::::Happy to help! I love this rabbit hole, and it’s one that many scholars have gone down (myself included) over the ages. (Digitizations and photocopies are generally referred to as facsimiles of the manuscript and not as editions of its text, though in my experience people get sloppy about that distinction for later printed works…) This scholarly field is known as book history and you might find some interesting entry points in the [https://sharpweb.org/sharpnews/ SHARP blog]. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 15:12, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::::Actually I’ll add a specific rec for Bitstreams by Matthew G. Kirschenbaum! A fun and readable bit of book history about digital books. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 15:16, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
• :Keeping in mind that something I wrote in 2015 (in non-absolutist terms) is hardly the last word on the subject, and our guidelines change over time as consensus shifts, the general place to look would be MOS:TITLES. It includes: {{tq|Italic type ... should be used for the following types of names and titles, or abbreviations thereof: ... Books, multi-volume works (e.g., encyclopedias), and booklets. But not pre-modern religious texts or scriptures: Bible, Quran, Bhagavad Gita, Old Testament, Epistle to the Galatians (but Kitab al-Kafi is italicized with {{tlx|translit|ar|Kitab al-Kāfī}} as transliterated Arabic, since this title is not assimilated into English the way {{xt|Quran}} and {{xt|Bhagavad Gita}} are)}}. It continues with {{tq|Titles of shorter works should be enclosed in double quotation marks ("text like this"). It particularly applies to works that exist as a smaller part of a larger work. Examples of titles which are quoted but not italicized: ...}} and then lists only things that are works that post-date the concept of printed publication. Even the first quoted section, on major works, doesn't address pre-modern ones other than religious scriptural material.

  In actual practice, our treatment of things like the Olomouc Law Book and Sir Gawain and the Green Knight and the Táin Bó Cúailnge and The Song of Amergin has been extremely inconsistent, other than that treatment within a single article is more often consitent (and should be). This is probably worth developing into an RfC to decide what to do with such manuscript materials. Either apply the "major works in italics, minor works in quotation marks" convention that applies to published works, or apply no stylization at all. The answer to this question might have implications for the rule quoted above regarding scriptural works, since they are a subset of pre-modern manuscripts. And I'm glossing over the "works as content" and "books as shelfmarks" distinction; whether that's one we should draw is an open question, and if affirmative then how to draw it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:26, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

{{Ping|Howardcorn33}} is edit warring to replace infobox book on the article of Encyclopædia Britannica with infobox website. I have vigorously disagreed with this because Britannica is far more important and prominent in its historical book form than its current incarnation as a website (there is, as far as I can tell, very little coverage of Britannica's current online incarnation in news sources compared to its long history as a book). There is currently not a separate article for Britannica online, though spinning one out is a possiblity. As both of us are at loggerheads, I thought that it would be better to get outside input. I would be greatful for your comments on the issue. Thanks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:55, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

:It's an interesting question. To my eye, the article (rightly) gives more weight to the 242 years of print publication than the 31 years of digital publication, and "infobox book" is the correct choice to summarize that info. The website version of the inbox omits a wide range of useful overall facts which should be available for quick reference. I think a split-out article on Brittanica Online is long overdue and is the appropriate place for "infobox website". ~ L 🌸 (talk) 23:12, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

:: {{Ping|LEvalyn}} do you agree with Howardcorn33's removal of many parameters from the infobox [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Britannica&oldid=1287666041]? Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:26, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

::: I can chime in on this.

::::* Removing the editions makes complete sense. There are 15 editions and there is no need to clutter up the infobox with all that info. Instead, I'd recommend re-enabling Editions but adding "15; see edition summary".

::::* Removing page numbers is fine, but I can also understand the article's previous approach (include the first and last editions' page counts)—in fact, I actually prefer that because it's interesting.

::::* Removing Congress ID makes sense for two reasons. 1) It's a British publication. 2) Providing the LoC ID for the 2007 edition has very limited value and will basically never be what readers want.

::::* Ibid for the ISBN. Not valuable. This is about all editions, not just one, and I presume the many volumes have dozens and dozens of ISBNs.

:::: Thanks — ImaginesTigers (talk) 19:57, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Pretty much seconding this. An article for the online version would also be good. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:04, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

:I have changed my position now, Hemiauchenia has made an excellent position and I apologize for my belligerence. Infobox website should (probably) not be used (at least not in the lead). But it is contentious to use data from the 15th edition of 2010 in the infobox. If we are to give a historical overview then data common to all editions of the Britannica should be displayed, or perhaps the infobox should be scrapped entirely if necessary. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 23:20, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

:: {{replyto|Howardcorn33}} I wouldn't support scrapping the infobox. For a very large and historic series, the infobox is a great place for us to do a little extra work to give a brilliant high-quality overview. I'd very much support spinning out a separate article for the online version, and dedicating this one to the published volumes. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 20:00, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

::For anyone reading this who I haven't pinged, I've now created a draft at Draft:Britannica.com so input there would be nice. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 22:10, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

:I concur with LEvalyn on both the infobox question and the split idea.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:28, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

PS: A side matter is that we have unencyclopedic erstwhile articles at Propædia, Micropædia, and Macropædia, utterly wallowing in trivia, and which need to merge as highly compressed sections (or more likely a single section) into Encyclopædia Britannica. These things are not general concepts about which an encyclopedia would write, nor are they stand-alone "products" about which an encyclopedia would write; they are simply neologistic names of sections of one edition of the EB, a structural division that was constroversial and quickly abandoned.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:31, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

::Merging/deleting those articles has been on my to do list for a while for exactly the reasons you describe. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:04, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Except in exceptional circumstances, I believe we are generally supposed to use the first edition cover. What I wonder is does this hold true for foreign language books that received an English edition later, or would we prefer an English cover? The former is what I have seen, but it does feel somewhat odd and I haven't seen it written anywhere. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:50, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

: A first edition cover in the language the author wrote it in makes intuitive sense to me. We present our content in English, but we shouldn't strive to be Anglo-centric, if that makes sense. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 02:22, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

::@ImaginesTigers I see that angle, but it seems to be dissimilar to our guidance on titles, which goes with any official English name it received in most cases. The inconsistency confuses me. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:24, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

::: I don't think there's an inconsistency there. We present our content in English – the article title is ours. The book cover isn't. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 02:26, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

::::I don't see how the title of the article is any more "ours" than what we are choosing to present to the reader. But I was mostly just curious what the consensus on this was. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:30, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

::::: Love in the Time of Cholera; The Count of Monte Cristo; The Master and the Margarita for some examples. A counterpoint would be Crime and Punishment. There is no real consensus so it's essentially down to each editor. If this were a conversation happening at FAC, I could imagine my arguing that there's more encyclopaedic value to the reader to see the book cover the author themselves would've had. It's the historical item, in a way, and the best representation of the book the author wrote. Regarding titles, El Señor Presidente is an old FA but it has the native-language title and book cover. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 02:38, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

If you have an opinion, please join the discussion. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:48, 10 May 2025 (UTC)