Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Text formatting#rfc 86F90DE

I would appreciate input about the use of italic type for "unidentified person" and "unidentified male" at List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, December 2024. Thanks! --Magnolia677 (talk) 15:58, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

{{edit semi-protected|1=Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Text formatting|answered=yes}}

This page contains multiple instances of the useless phrases "note that" and "please note". These should all be removed, as they add no information to their respective sentences. 2605:A601:A0A4:2700:D078:87F1:E5A0:A451 (talk) 06:25, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

:{{not done}}: the MoS does not need to take its own advice. In educational settings, those phrases can indeed be used to draw particular emphasis to passages, even if they are misplaced in encyclopedic writing. Remsense ‥ 论 06:28, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

::I'm asking not because the MOS needs to take its own advice, but because it improves the writing. If you need to emphasize something, emphasize it, don't just ask the reader to note it: The entirety of the text is information for the reader to note. Furthermore, which items with that wording do you think require emphasis above and beyond the rest of the paragraphs they're in? To me, none of those sentences seems more especially noteworthy than the surrounding text. 2605:A601:A0A4:2700:D078:87F1:E5A0:A451 (talk) 06:36, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

:::I think it's fine, but wouldn't object if someone else agrees. Remsense ‥ 论 06:37, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

:{{done}} DonIago (talk) 14:39, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm reviewing Paulina Luisi for GAN. The nominator, using a local convention apparently specified at WP:UY, is rendering translated proper names like this:

{{tqb|Alianza de Mujeres para los Derechos Femeninos (transl. 'Women's Alliance for Women's Rights')}}

This seems to me, at least, to break the italic rules we have. Is this an acceptable convention or conflicting with MOS? Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 17:51, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

:If I understand the MoS correctly, the name should be in roman type but with the language tagged: {{langr|es|Alianza de Mujeres para los Derechos Femeninos}} ({{langr|es|Alianza de Mujeres para los Derechos Femeninos}}. Indefatigable (talk) 18:17, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

:Italics in this case seem to comply with MOS:NONENGITALIC. fgnievinski (talk) 19:20, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Mathglot (talk) comments at User talk:Stephan Leeds#Italics for first introduction of term, objecting to my overuse of italics for terms introduced in an article (e.g. this edit), interpreting MOS:TERM, though my interpretation of the same passage is that is specifically calls for the italics as added (or, alternatively, quoting). Is this use of italics excessive or in accordance with the MOS? Stephan Leeds (talk) 01:36, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

: Slight clarification: I don't see that edit as an example of "overuse", but rather misuse of italics. I have no objection to keeping all of them, if valid; but in my reading of MOS:TERM none are valid, because in the linked sentence, they are used in running text for their normal English meaning, not mentioned as words. Mathglot (talk) 07:35, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

::Actually, it should be boldface, per MOS:BOLDREDIRECT. MOS:ITALICTERM would only apply for terms defined redirecting to other articles. fgnievinski (talk) 19:26, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

The Font size section should probably say something explicit about the use of {{code|font-size:smaller}}. Is it acceptable or evil? — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 11:43, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

:"Editors should avoid manually inserting large and small fonts into prose" is already there. Gawaon (talk) 12:37, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

:: Yes, but. The use of "smaller" does not technically contravene the injunction against "small". The distinction may seem pedantic, but there are nearly 10,000 articles which do use "smaller" and so the MOS needs to be explicit and unambiguous. Is "smaller" OK or not? — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 13:54, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

:::The text does not say "do you use the css property value of 'small'", so specifying every value isn't needed. The guideline also continues and says that {{tq|in no case should the resulting font size of any text drop below 85% of the page's default font size}}. If using font-size:smaller reduces the size below 85%, then it should be removed. Gonnym (talk) 14:04, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

:::I too don't see a difference between "small" and "smaller" here. And for the case where the resulting font size is between 85% and 99%, I suppose it depends on the context – how is "smaller" used there? Can you give some examples? Gawaon (talk) 14:08, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

::::OK, so the MOS deems "smaller" is acceptable and there is nothing to pursue. I will hunt down uses of "font-size:8pt" and friends instead — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 14:15, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::Wait, what? I'd rather say the opposite, since the MOS says: "Increased and decreased font size should primarily be produced through automated facilities such as headings or through carefully designed templates." So I'd say any use of "smaller" outside a template is suspicious and should likely be removed. Gawaon (talk) 16:31, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

File:Symbol watching blue lashes high contrast.svg You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Lang § langar vs. Script/Arabic in "Native name" parameters, and other cases. waddie96 ★ (talk) 08:44, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

File:Symbol_watching_blue_lashes_high_contrast.svg You are invited to join the discussion at MOS talk:ETY § Purpose.

— W.andrea (talk) 21:21, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

There's an ongoing discussion related to MOS:WORDSASWORDS at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2025_April_7#Category:Concepts_by_language. fgnievinski (talk) 19:13, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Some advice for the use of italics for awards? I tried with italics and without italics while editing The Kyiv Independent, and both look equally acceptable to me. I'm left wondering whether awards qualify as titles. (ChatGPT said no. I think I agree. I suppose I'll do likewise, pending further guidance.) SelfDestructible (talk) 08:40, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

:They aren't MOS:MAJORWORKS. Gonnym (talk) 15:10, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

::I'm guessing the awards ceremonies themselves aren't, either. SelfDestructible (talk) 18:30, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

In Oct 2022 the following paragraph was included in MOS:BOLD:

For semanthical emphasis (to denote importance, seriousness, or urgency), you can also use the HTML element ..., or the template {{strong}}. This is desirable because the words can standout for text to speech and other software, important due to accesibility issues.

The edit summary stated: "added guidance to update guideline per Template:Strong and WP:ACCESS" [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AManual_of_Style%2FText_formatting&diff=prev&oldid=1114547193]

However, the authoritative source of guidance on matters of style is the MOS, not any Template:Strong documentation. Furthermore, MOS:ACCESS (it its current version or back in 2022) doesn't say anything about the use of HTML strong or the corresponding template. Finally, between 2021 and 2022, there was a related discussion at Template_talk:Strong#Use_in_lead_sections_of_articles which toned down the wording in Template:Strong.

So, I've removed the paragraph above. To reinstate it, one would have to: (a) demonstrate the semantic markup is beneficial for accessibility (mainly text to speech); (b) clarify what use cases constitute valid instances of semanthical emphasis ("importance, seriousness, or urgency") without conflicting with existing guidance, such as:

• MOS:EMPHASIS recommending the use of italics instead of boldface.
• MOS:BOLDTITLE recommending the use of regular bold, not "strong", for titles.
• MOS:BOLDREDIRECT recommending the use of regular bold, not "strong", for redirected titles.

In fact, of all Template:Strong/doc#Use_cases, only the third one, in the use of quotes, seems nonconflicting with other parts of MOS. fgnievinski (talk) 04:06, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

:fgnievinski, I don't think it's necessary to "demonstrate the semantic markup is beneficial for accessibility (mainly text to speech)". I imagine that audio browsers, or the audio modules of mainstream browsers, allow the "end user" to apply CSS to differentiate between B and STRONG (or among I, EM, and CITE); or, if they don't, could do so in the future. -- Hoary (talk) 03:25, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Let's suppose that an article is treating some grammatical matter, and that for each of several examples its editors want (editor wants) to indicate (A) sentences as a whole ("That's the office to which she was sent"), (B) certain parts ("to which she was sent") within these, and (C) certain parts ("which") within those "certain parts".

Three among the more obvious possibilities -- which of course could extend to yellow highlighting, exotic brackets【】〘〙and gods know what -- are:

• That's the office to which she was sent.
• That's the office {{Em|1=to {{Strong|1=which}} she was sent}}.
• That's the office to {{Smallcaps|1=which}} she was sent.

What with such factors as (i) Wikipedia's general aversion to boldface, to (non-linking) underlining, and (I think) to less common markup practice, (ii) the widespread lack of genuine small caps (and use of ugly, smaller-point-size full caps in their place), (iii) the absurdity of a demand for "boldface", "italic" or "small caps" voice qualities for audio browsers, (iv) the preference (tho' not requirement) for standardization across articles, et cetera ... what's the current thinking on best practice(s) (or if that's too optimistic then least bad practice(s)) for this purpose? -- Hoary (talk) 01:04, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

:Just to comment that the characters 【】〘〙 are not compatible with Roman-letter typography, and should not normally appear in a document purporting to be in English, except in foreign language quotations. Imaginatorium (talk) 04:46, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

::They're not part of Roman-letter typography, {{U|Imaginatorium}}, and they would look uncomfortable as well as unfamiliar. But I'd say that their unfamiliarity would be a reason for preferring them over [ ] ( ): They'd draw attention to themselves, thus highlighting their content. But no, I'm not advocating their use, if only because they're likely to be rendered as identical "character unavailable" glyphs (perhaps question marks seemingly incised in black splodges). -- Hoary (talk) 05:04, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Sorry, but I think this is just an error. They do not belong in Roman typography, because they are not designed to fit a system with a baseline, an x-height, and space for ascenders and descenders. In the reverse direction, using them would be as horrible as the [https://imaginatorium.org/words/descend.htm bulldog]. They might look surprising or all sorts of things, but so might "emojis", and I don't think those belong either. And it does seem unnecessarily confusing to use these as jazzed-up versions of []() with (presumably) their Japanese meaning, which is more or less the opposite (emphasis as opposed to parenthesis) meaning to the original. (But I think this is all a sidetrack to your original point, concerning the need sometimes for more distinctions than the simplistic ideas of the "semantics" lobby.) Imaginatorium (talk) 09:33, 26 June 2025 (UTC)