Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Text formatting/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 9

Using boldface for redirects

I note the discussion above about using boldface for alternate names, but surely we should be bolding for redirects as set out by Wikipedia:Redirect#What_needs_to_be_done_on_pages_that_are_targets_of_redirects.3F? Another editor has been removing the boldface from redirects citing MOS:BOLD could this be clarified in the MOS?— Rod ^talk 21:08, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

There was once a guidline (somewhere) that mandated such embolding so as to explain why the redirect took place - I see that MOS:BOLD allows for synonyms & acronyms to be shown in bold and would suggest that redirects from - for example - the names of hamlets that share an article with their nearest village/town should continue be shown in bold. In short I believe the editor that has been removing these is making unhelpful changes. Saga City (talk) 10:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The link Rodw gives above explains why we need to bold the targets of redirects, by the Principle of Least Astonishment. Removing such bolding would be disruptive. PamD (talk) 11:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

But, having glimpsed at (couldnt' face reading it all) the discussion above, I suppose we need to clarify that it's only the first occurrence of the redirect target which needs to be bolded - or the first occurrence in the section to which the redirect leads, if that's the case. PamD (talk) 11:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Special names for wrestling moves

The Wrestling Project is trying to be more consistent in our article writing, and we've come across an issue that we need some outside opinions on. Wrestlers often give their moves nicknames, and we are trying to decide whether they should be written it italics, put in quotations, or left in plain text. Should the move be given emphasis because it is a special move of a particular wrestler? Does anyone know of a relevant precedent in another sport? Here is an example of how it could be written:

• Batista lifted his opponent into the air and slammed him to the ground using a move known as the Batista Bomb.
• Batista lifted his opponent into the air and slammed him to the ground using a move known as the "Batista Bomb."
• Batista lifted his opponent into the air and slammed him to the ground using a move known as the Batista Bomb.

Any opinions would be appreciated. Thanks. Nikki♥311 21:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Could I suggest single quotes? Thus:

Batista lifted his opponent into the air and slammed him to the ground using a move known as the 'Batista Bomb'.

The quotes hold the phrase together. Saga City (talk) 15:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Quotation marks says we use double-quotes and not single-quotes. I think, if quotes are used, they should follow that convention. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 16:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Because WP uses logical quoting, I think the second example above should be:

• Batista lifted his opponent into the air and slammed him to the ground using a move known as the "Batista Bomb".

(Note the position of the period.) Myself, I prefer italics to quotes; I think they look better. Ozob (talk) 19:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

colored text

Does the MOS have any statements regarding the use of colored text in articles? I assume it is frowned upon as unnecessary emphasis, but was looking for something "official". I didn't see anything on this page--if there is something in the MOS already, it should probably be repeated or linked here. --LJ (talk) 21:28, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments requested on interpretation of this guideance

I am requesting comments on the interpretation of this guideline on bolding the family name in the lede of an article about a group of animals, at Talk Elephant#Bolding of Elephantidae in lede. -- Donald Albury 09:30, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Latin all-caps under "Italic face" heading

Under Foreign terms, a sub-section of Italic face, is the following sentence.

For better accessibility, Latin language quotations should never be set in all-capitals or small capitals, even when such use might seem anachronistic.

Firstly, I would normally read this as stating the opposite of what was intended (i.e. I would understand "such use" as referring to the use of all-capitals).
Secondly, does this belong under "Italic face"?
--Boson (talk) 23:06, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Descriptive titles

"If the article topic does not have a commonly accepted name, but is merely descriptive (e.g., history of the United States), the title does not need to appear in the first sentence, and is not bolded if it does."

Roman Britain is in bold. Unsurprisingly given the above, History of the United States isn't but History of Puerto Rico, an FA, is. A user has recently removed the bold from Scotland during the Roman Empire (a GA), which looks most odd to me. What does "descriptive" mean exactly? "Roman Britain" is a well-known phrase - but "Roman Scotland" (assuming there were such an article) wouldn't be. Why the distinction?

I can quite understand that if the title of the article e.g. the example of Electrical characteristics of dynamic loudspeakers in WP:LEAD isn't used it should not be bolded, but what is the purpose of creating this rather vague distinction, that is apparently widely ignored? Ben MacDui 11:46, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Prezbo (talk · contribs) seems to be going through all FAs to do this. --Moni3 (talk) 00:10, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Maybe removing the boldface made the Scotland article worse, but in general I think if a sentence looks strange without this idiosyncratic formatting that means it should be written differently.Prezbo (talk) 01:48, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand the above. The sentences concerned have generally been through some kind of peer review. Presumably every single list on Wikipedia is "descriptive". This guideline needs to be changed urgently. I suggest removing:

"If the article topic does not have a commonly accepted name, but is merely descriptive (e.g., history of the United States), the title does not need to appear in the first sentence, and is not bolded if it does."

and replacing it with:

"If the title of the article involves a non-trivial description that does not need to appear verbatim in the main text, and even if it does, it should not be in boldface. So, for example, Electrical characteristics of dynamic loudspeakers begins with:

A dynamic loudspeaker driver's chief electrical characteristic is its electrical impedance versus frequency.

Simple "descriptions" such as "history of the United States", "list of Portuguese monarchs" or "timeline of prehistoric Scotland" should be bolded.

Ben MacDui 07:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

So you think that "history of x" titles should always appear verbatim in the first sentence?Prezbo (talk) 07:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Can you provide examples of quality articles that don't use this style? MOSBOLD states: "The article's subject is usually the same as the page title, but not always." The exceptions it lists don't include history articles. Ben MacDui 08:05, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Where is that from? WP:MOSBOLD doesn't say that. The only reason I can think of to put the article title verbatim in the first sentence would be if that title is a term or phrase that need to be defined for the reader, which is logically something you would want to do right at the beginning of the article. "History of x" isn't a phrase that needs to be defined, every reader already understands what it means. If article writers aren't putting the article title into the first sentence verbatim in order to define it, then they're just writing first sentences that try to incorporate the article title in some way, often awkwardly (even if the title is short) and what's the benefit of that? Some examples of quality articles that don't do this would be History of Shaktism, Geography of South Dakota, and Society of the Song Dynasty. Obviously it's possible to write quality articles that don't do this (no other encyclopedia uses this kind of formatting) so even if I was unable to find any examples I don't know what that would prove.Prezbo (talk) 08:23, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, I see, the quote is from WP:BOLDTITLE. I don't understand how you can quote a guideline to refute another guideline. Anyway BOLDTITLE says the same thing MOSBOLD does--that the rule is waived for descriptions. "history of x" is a description--you even call it a description in your proposed guideline above.Prezbo (talk) 08:40, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this issue is decided or not, but it seems unclear to me per this discussion, and since Prezbo is the only editor taking this one by going through the list of FAs and de-bolding their first line titles, it seems it should be clarified right away by more than Prezbo. If you post this issue at WT:FAC, even by linking it here, I'm sure you will get much more input by FA editors who have edited the articles that may be affected. --Moni3 (talk) 12:49, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

There's no urgency, I've already said I won't change anything until this is resolved.Prezbo (talk) 13:01, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Understood, and thank-you. Whilst I think you may have been a little over-bold, I don't think you can be faulted for attempting to implement an existing guideline. The problem as I see it is that the policy of emboldening titles is so widespread that this guideline has in effect fallen into disuse and its likely that hundreds of articles, many of them FLs do not adhere to it. It seems to me that is going to be easier and more consistent to amend this page than the many others. I'll post something at WT:FAC etc. and see what response there is. Ben MacDui 18:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I think this is one of those issues, like date delinking, where most people won't object all that much if you change an individual article that you happen to be editing for other reasons, but people are likely to get very upset if you change large numbers of articles by mass-editing. Looie496 (talk) 19:16, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Support proposed change. Article topic should always be bolded in the opening sentence unless it is extremely awkward. History of the United States should be bolded. List names are awkward. Reywas92^Talk 21:02, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Oppose overly broad action. This seems to be a case of people favoring rules over content. (See WP:IAR.) Have any of you looked at History of the United States? You'll note that the phrase "History of the United States" does not appear in the lead section, which really makes me wonder how so many people think it needs to be bold. I'm sure it would be possible to rewrite the lead section to shoehorn the phrase in to the lead section, but that would be totally missing the point. I see no need for every article to restate its page name in bold print. I think the rule should be something along the lines of, “If the lead section evolves naturally to contain the article title, the first occurrence should be in bold.″ If it there, bold it; if not, not. Simple, easy. If the lead section is awkward because it states the article title, then the lead section should be rewritten. Remove the statement and improve the wording rather than trying to decide if it should be bold or not. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 05:23, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I did - and it seemed somewhat anomalous - all the descriptive FAs and GA's I looked at did have bolded titles, which suggest the practice is extremely widespread. The "original" wording would have meant changing the opening sentences of innumerable lists and other articles. I don't have a difficulty with your revised wording, although I suspect most GA reviewers would. Ben MacDui 08:12, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Oppose Starting an article with something like, "This is a list of United States Senators who served in the 110th United States Congress arranged by seniority" is just silly. The same sentence without the intermittent bold is better, but it still seems like it is unnecessarily repeating the title. There is no reason why a list called "List of United States Senators in the 110th Congress by seniority" shouldn't start, "The 102 United States Senators who served during the 110th United States Congress, are listed here by seniority. Seniority is determined..." It flows better, allows for additional information, and allows for linking. Since the bold iteration of the title is not supposed to contain links (for good reason), it is often necessary to repeat terms that should be linked just so they can be. At the very least, the guideline should state no preference for bolding such text. Preferably, bolding descriptive titles, especially long ones, would be discouraged. -Rrius (talk) 06:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

That's not either the intention or what it said. I have never seen an article beginning with intermittent boldface and nor would I want to. DragonHawk's amendment would seem to cover this however. Ben MacDui 08:12, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Oppose, for the time being, until the text address the issue of links within article titles. Consistency is needed, and perhaps always bolding is the way to go, but titles like History of France (or whatever) look terrible.--Cúchullain ^t/c 12:20, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree, but as WP:LEAD suggests that we "Use as few links as possible before and in the bolded title", it would be History of France. Candidly I am not sure why this particular section exists here at all when it could just as easily all appear in WP:LEAD. However, the path of least resistance might be to repeat this statement here. Ben MacDui 17:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Descriptive titles coverage moved

I noticed that the descriptive text here at MOS:BOLD seemed to be drifting from what was stated over at MOS:BOLDTITLE. Rather than try to keep two different MOS pages in sync, I figured we were better off referring readers to one location. The style guidance will thus be in a single location. That's easier for readers to follow, and easier for editors to maintain. It also means discussion can happen on a single talk page, and interested parties don't have to watch for discussions on two separate pages.

I'll see about continuing the discussion over at Wikipedia talk:Lead section.

Cheers! —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 22:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

FYI, discussion now happening at Wikipedia talk:Lead section#Total confusion about use of bold. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 14:31, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Cross-references

I would like to see a guideline on how cross-references should be formatted. It isn't obvious.

At this time France possessed the largest population in Europe (see Demographics of France)

or:

At this time France possessed the largest population in Europe (see "Demographics of France")

or (as in most print reference works):

At this time France possessed the largest population in Europe (see Demographics of France)

remembering that hyperlinks aren't formatting and don't show up on paper.

I'm trying to start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#More italics clarification and inline .22see.22 Please contribute there if you can. --Cedders^tk 16:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Do what I say, not what I do?

As of today, the hatnotes for the article look roughly like this:

This page provides guidance on when to format ^text in articles.

For instructions on how to do that, see Wikipedia:How to edit a page#Character formatting.

The formatting of the notes sets a bad example because it doesn't follow what the article recommends. I understand that using examples helps to define text formatting, but starting off with precisely the sort of thing we are attempting to avoid doesn't seem wise. I'd leave the examples for the body of the article and use a more standard hatnote:

This page provides guidance on when to format text in articles.

For instructions on how to do that, see Wikipedia:How to edit a page#Character formatting.

That follows the practice of reversing the use of italics to indicate emphasis. Personally, I think more emphasis on when and how would be a good thing. The article prohibits using using bold for emphasis in the article text, but hatnotes aren't really part of the article text proper, and even if so, this may be a good time to ignore the rules (in moderation):

This page provides guidance on when to format text in articles.

For instructions on how to do that, see Wikipedia:How to edit a page#Character formatting.

I'd also combine the two sentences into a paragraph:

This page provides guidance on when to format text in articles. For instructions on how to do that, see Wikipedia:How to edit a page#Character formatting.

Lastly, what are the rules/conventions for having such hatnotes in the first place? Most of the other MoS subpages do not have similar notes. The WP:TM MOS:ICONS page uses a {{nutshell}} to summarize the article, but that may not fit here:

Other similar boxes use bold text for emphasis, so this might be better:

Comments? — John Cardinal (talk) 17:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Quite agree, and I prefer the second of the two nutshells. Ben MacDui 19:10, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Boldface vs. italics in quotes of actual speech

I am in a dispute with Ckatz about It Takes a Thief (1968 TV series). See the edit summaries on its history page, the diff pages thereto, and the talk page. Specifically, the main opening titles there contain a bit of spoken dialogue which contain deliberate and important emphasis. Over the course of the series' run, there were three different versions, each with a different actor (in character) saying something different. I had indicated these emphases with boldface, and eventually Ckatz came along and reverted all back to plain text except for the first instance, which he changed to italics, claiming guidelines supported him (why he thought that the first would satisfy all is beyond me). After I reverted, saying italics don't emphasize and certainly the first alone was not enough for the others, he reverted again, this time linking in this guideline page. I pointed out to him, accurately, that nothing here deals with a situation such as the one at hand. When he again reverted, he ignored that, saying that if I disagreed with the guideline I should do so there (meaning here, of course). Well, I told him again that I was not disgreeing with the regs in that case but pointing out the fact that they don't cover that situation, which was certainly not my oversight, and that I would bring it up there (here). Here I am. Let me further add that italics simply fail to add emphasis, especially within a lengthy passage (compare that last to the boldfaced words previous to gauge the differences in effect yourselves). I respectfully request both an addition to cover one-time-spoken statements not subject to being read in different ways by different people on different occasions that contain intentional emphasis, and also a reconsideration of the prohibition on boldface for emphasis at all. Thank you. --Tbrittreid (talk) 21:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment The choice of words to highlight, if any at all, is irrelevant to this aspect of the discussion. (Personally, I don't care about the word choice; I ended up here because Tbrittreid reverted an IP who disagreed with his use of boldface.) Simply put, the Manual of Style appears quite clear on this matter:

"Italics may be used to draw attention to an important word or phrase within a sentence when the point or thrust of the sentence may otherwise not be apparent to readers, or to stress a contrast."

"Use italics, not boldface, for emphasis in article text."

"Italics are used within quotations if they are already in the source material, or are added by Wikipedia to give emphasis to some words. If the latter, an editorial note [emphasis added] should appear at the end of the quotation."

Tbrittreid insists that those sections don't apply in this case, and that - since he feels there is no direct mention of how to format this particular case - he is free to use boldface. I've asked for some proof - any proof - that boldface is warranted under the Manual of Style, but he refuses to provide it. Frankly, this is a silly thing to argue about, as the Manual of Style seems to address it already. However, if there is even the slightest chance that the MoS is not crystal-clear on the correct option, an opinion from the regulars here would be welcomed and beneficial. Thanks in advance. --Ckatz^chat_spy 22:48, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

• Chatz is right. It is bad form to use bold typeface to show emphasis. That is the opinion of this and just about every other style guide. Boldface is very abrupt and distracting, and should be used sparingly. I really don't understand the notion implicit in the title of this section that somehow it being quoted speech matters. I don't understand where that notion came from, but it is flat wrong. -Rrius (talk) 23:06, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Something's wrong here, because I responded to Ckatz's post here before you did, yet there's no sign of it, not in the edit history for this page or my own "My Contributions" list. Let me recap: I have no idea what his "word choice" opening is about, other than the suspicion he is just trying to throw up a smoke screen to keep this from being resolved on its own merits, i.e., not his way. For him to suggest on the linked-in article talk page that if I disagree with the guideline (which I wasn't there) I should do so here, then follow me here to belittle me for doing so is uncivil and lacking in good faith. So is his claim that I "refuse" to provide proof, when I had stated to him there and again here that the Manual of Style doesn't cover the sort of situation at hand, that proof one way or the other simply doesn't exist. This was an absolutely unethical and unacceptable misrepresentation of the facts on his part.

"...flat wrong." Why? Because you say so? The fact of the matter is that it is a different type of situation than anything indicated in the guidelines. Here we are dealing with recorded speech that isn't going to be performed again, unlike a stage play that can be "revived." No differing interpretations on how it might be read, none relevant to this article anyway. Everything in the Wiki guidelines, and not just the examples but the described applications, is about quoting text. But never mind that, as the real question here is whether italics or boldface should be used for emphasis. You are wrong about "every other style guide." I was consistently taught in Language/English/Composition classes that italics are for titles and boldface is for emphasis. Period. I again point out that simple examination of this thread and that on the linked-in article talk page will show that italics do not give emphasis but get lost in the text. Your claim that "boldface is very abrupt and distracting" is absurd. The purpose of "emphasis" is to make the word stand out and be specifically noticed, to distract the reader from the regular flow of the reading. Besides, read this, from Funk & Wagnall's Desk Dictionary:

"emphasis: 1. Special significance or importance assigned to something. 2. Stress given by voice or rhetorical contrivance to a particular syllable, word or phrase. 3. Force or intensity of meaning, action, etc."

I defy you to look over this thread and the one at the aforementioned link and say that the italicized words have that, and that the boldfaced ones have anything else. Understand what is under discussion here is an actual effect, so arbitrary proclamations are irrelevant. --Tbrittreid (talk) 23:09, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

There's no "belittling" at all. By "word choice", I merely meant that the actual words to be highlighted are irrelevant to this discussion, the subject at hand being specifically whether to use italics or boldface to do the highlighting. Once that is resolved, you can highlight as few or as many words as you see fit. As for the rest of your post, you still have not established any convention on Wikipedia that would support using boldface. Even if one accepts your assertion that the guidelines do not cover this (and I don't), it is a stretch to presume that the numerous entries indicating that we are not to use boldface for emphasis would somehow not apply in a new case. You are insisting that you can use bold in the absence of a directive not to; I am saying that you need to get that guidance first, in light of the crystal-clear directives against using it in related situations. --Ckatz^chat_spy 23:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Italics is preferred by style guides for emphasis, and boldface is deprecated. That is simple fact that can be verified by turning to a style guide, which you apparently cannot or will not do. It does not matter whether the material to be emphasized is within quoted material or not, which appears to be a distinction you are making. If it is not, then you need to be clearer. -Rrius (talk) 00:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

To Ckatz—the belittling was in your, "...this is a silly thing to argue about...." You still have failed to justify your "word choice" discussion as anything but a distraction from the actual point. "...I meant that the actual words to be highlighted are irrelevant to this discussion...." Then why mention that at all? I damned well hadn't said a thing about it in the post you were following up on. With this you essentially admit to trying to distract us from the actual point.

To Rrius—by ignoring my explanation that arbitrary proclamations are irrelevant, that we are talking about creating a visual effect in the text that italics utterly fail to do—at least in Wikipedia's font—you indicate an unwillingness to be fair and impartial in this discussion.

As for Ckatz's insistence that I need to show something in the guidelines that actively supports using boldface there, let me make this clearer than I admittedly have done before: I have dropped that specific dispute in favor of pointing out the fact that italics simply and utterly fail to lend emphasis in Wikipedia text at all and the Wiki guideline needs to be changed in general. Outside style guides to the contrary—and I repeat that all my classes taught exactly the opposite of your claim here anyway—are irrelevant because emphasis either exists or it does not, and with the italicization of isolated words or short phrases in running Wikipedia text it does not exist. Period. It cannot be merely asserted that italics give emphasis when any objective and honest examination of the evidence will show that it does not, not here. Ignore the most important points in this post and make irrelevant generalizations at your own peril. --Tbrittreid (talk) 20:49, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Let me guess—because it's clear that you won't be allowed to get away with anything that's less than genuinely valid and can't think of any defense of your position which is that, rather than have that happen to you again or admit that you're wrong you're just not going to say anything at all? --Tbrittreid (talk) 21:26, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Fowler, A Dictionary of Modern English Usage, 2nd ed., revised by Gowers, 1965, p.313, says that one of the proper uses of italics is, "If the sentence were being spoken, there would be a stress on this word." Ozob (talk) 04:09, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

That's just idiotic. I never said I was here to be fair or impartial. Style guides exist for a reason. Boldface is unattractive and less effective at emphasis than italics. You have yet to make an important point, so there has been none to ignore. If you don't like my opinion, I don't care, but you should take note of the fact that so far both people who have waded into your dispute with Ckatz have taken his side. It might help if you could manage to summarize your position in a few words because your statements above are long, unattractively formatted, and just plain boring. -Rrius (talk) 00:31, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Since you are neither Ckatz nor Rrius, I won't enforce my warning against your post. As I said previously in no uncertain terms, outside style guides and any unilateral or arbitrary assertion are irrelevant because emphasis is an effect to be created; it either exists or it does not, and italics do not actually, physically create emphasis in Wikipedia text, as can be seen from examining this thread and the article talk page thread linked into my initial post that launched this thread. Both contain various words here and there that are italicized or boldfaced for emphasis, and it is patently obvious which are and are not emphasized, corroborated by the fact that neither of the other two posters here have so much as acknowledged this assertion. I freely concede that italics do work that way elsewhere on the internet, such as IMDb discussion boards (if there are at least two characters to emphasize, although sometimes that's not long enough), but the effect does not happen here. --Tbrittreid (talk) 23:34, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be the only one to think that italics don't work here. That is patently ridiculous as evidenced by the fact that the existing MOS is against you. What's more, you were wrong in your earlier post; emphasis is not supposed to stop you in your tracks, it is supposed to call attention. -Rrius (talk) 00:34, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Do I "seem to be the only one to think that italics don't work here"? Not one soul has asserted otherwise. I deny that "the entire MOS is against me." Much of it has nothing to do with this, and it is entirely hypothetical, making your claim rubbish if you'd phrased it reasonably. Furthermore, I also deny claiming that the point of emphasis was to "stop you in your tracks," I deny that boldface does this, and I repeat that my point is that in Wikipedia's font italics do not "call attention" but are lost in the text. The facts that you did not deal with that contention at all until four days after I first made it—and re-made it in terms that ignoring it further would have to have been held against you—and that you still don't actually deny seeing the text that way, are evidence that you don't believe otherwise yourself. --Tbrittreid (talk) 01:18, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I haven't been on WP much the last few days and this page wasn't in my watchlist the few times I was on, so that argument is baseless. It was silly for you to have ever made it to be frank. Your first two sentences just make no sense. Either you are saying that you never said italics don't work here or you are saying no one has disputed that. If your contribution of 23:34 UTC on 21 November doesn't say that, then you were unclear there. If, on the other hand, you do not see how the other three people have informed you that your position is wrong, then you can't read. That interpretation is backed up by your misquoting me. I said "the existing MOS", not "the entire MOS". As a result, your entire argument based on that is also garbage. I'm not sure what you are saying I'm ignoring because you haven't made a whole lot of sense to this point.

Finally, you said emphasis was to "distract the reader from the regular flow of the reading", which is stopping you in your tracks, not merely highlighting, which is the actual point of emphasis. Bold text, such as you have annoyingly used in your contributions, is distracting and annoying and disrupts the reader in such a way as to make him or her stop reading and start again. That is not the point emphasis, but is just bad writing. Just so you know, if your next contribution doesn't actually make some attempt to defend your position, as opposed to attacking me or issuing unexplained ultimatums, I'm just going to assume you are a troll and ignore you. My assumption, however, is that you are merely a poor writer, as evidenced by your barely comprehensible contribution of 21:26 UTC on 20 November. If your request is that I provide citations to style guides, then say so clearly, preferably with the words "please provide citations to style guides". I think that might be what you are asking for, but you aren't doing a great job of doing it. Your abrasive style has made the attempt to parse your contributions less than appealing, so if that is not what you are looking for, please forgive me. -Rrius (talk) 02:01, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

To begin with your reference to my "attacking" you, you get what you earn, or to echo Thomas Jefferson: It's true whether I say so or not, I might as well say so; "might as well" is an understatement, as your poor behavior is a central problem here, keeping this issue from being resolved on its own merits. I deny that my previous post which you diff-linked in is at all incomprehensible (other than my unintentionally leaving out the word "than" between "less" and "genuinely valid" where my intent should have been quite clear anyway, and which I have now inserted for any late comers). I have repeatedly said—and explained why—in no uncertain terms that outside style guides are irrelevant (you must understand they were not written with this particular font in mind), so your suggestion that you think that I am asking for citations of such can be nothing less than a bald-faced lie (again, it's true whether I say so or not...). I have validly defended my position several times, which is more than can be said of you. Furthermore, you today have inserted a post between Ozob's only one here and my response to it from some time back, which is completely lacking in rationality, and was presumably so located in the hope that I wouldn't see it. Tough luck, I did. For example: If you are not here "to be fair and impartial," you shouldn't be here at all, because that is precisely what is called for, a fair and impartial response to my request for a change to the guidelines based on the actual reality of the situation, not a defense of Ckatz based on bias (what other alternative is there?). That was an absolutely indefensible thing to say (Jefferson one more time). It is now abundantly clear that you will not be reasonable about this issue. I did indeed indicate that there would be consequences to ignoring points and making irrelevant generalizations, and there will be, especially since you have now gone beyond that. If you aren't familiar enough with Wiki procedures to realize what I refer to, that's not my fault. --Tbrittreid (talk) 23:59, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Clearly there is no point in bothering with you. You ignore the force of outside style guides, you ignore this one, you ignore arguments against the use of bold for emphasis. It is clear that the only argument you would ever recognise as valid is one you've made. You are wrong; authority says you're wrong, aesthetics say you're wrong, but you won't hear any of it. It is tempting to say some terribly nasty things about trying to talk with people like you, but I will simply say that any attempt at discussion with you is worthless. You needn't bother responding as I won't bother reading what you write. -Rrius (talk) 00:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that the consensus here is against boldface and for italics. Ozob (talk) 03:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Irregular font-size style

Is there a MOS guideline for text size? I can't find anything that says 110% font size (for example) is discouraged for normal prose text, lists, and table contents (as a form of emphasis), but I think it ought to be. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:58, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Is this something we actually need to codify? I agree that we should discourage using a larger font for emphasis, but if it's not an issue, then maybe we can avoid cluttering the MoS. Ozob (talk) 23:52, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's an issue with an editor I am disagreeing with, which is why I came looking here. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 00:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Some anon just helped you out. I'll back you up too if you need it. Ozob (talk) 01:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I saw that somewhat odd edit; it wasn't me! I'm not sure I would say "never". Many wikitables use a 90% or 95% font size for space reasons, and certainly the standard {{infobox}} uses the font-size style (at 88%). — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 01:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, I touched it up some. I don't really like the style of the section (I'm not comfortable with "never" either), but I'm not really sure how to make it better at the moment. Maybe something will come to me, or maybe someone else will have some inspiration. Ozob (talk) 02:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Question

Can strike text be used in the article? I don't see a section about that here.—Chris!_c/t 03:10, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Help with italics and apostrophes

Because Italic text is generated on Wikipedia using double apostrophes, using an apostrophe after an italicised word often creates a mess. Here's an example from Philip Campbell (scientist): 'He takes direct editorial responsibility for the content of Natures editorials, writing some of them. Philip Campbell is Natures seventh Editor-in-Chief since the journal was launched in 1869.' The problem arises because the title of the journal Nature is italicised, but also used as a possessive. Is there any way of avoiding this problem? Or should the sentence simply be rephrased? Robofish (talk) 02:14, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm. That's a fascinating question, and I can't find an elegant solution. Two things I can think of are (1) use an HTML comment to break up the text for the parser (horrible ugly kludge), or (2) use HTML tags for bold/italics in these cases (ugly sore thumb non-wikiness). To wit:

… content of ''Nature''<!-- -->'s editorials … 

renders as

… content of Nature's editorials …

and

… content of <i>Nature</i>'s editorials … 

renders as

… content of Nature's editorials …

But again, both are ugly. Personally, I find the second method slightly less ugly, but YMMV. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 04:15, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

There are two things you can do here. One is to insert a space. This may cause an undesirable space. (Ooh. Bet you didn't see that coming.) The other is to use <nowiki> tags. That is:

He takes direct editorial responsibility for the content of Nature's editorials, writing some of them. Philip Campbell is Nature's seventh Editor-in-Chief since the journal was launched in 1869.

Tada! Ozob (talk) 04:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

You can use the apostrophe template, {{-}}:

content of ''Nature''{{'}}s editorials

... which renders as

content of Nature's editorials

Or you could let the trailing be italic, couldn't you?

— John Cardinal (talk) 14:31, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Letting the trailing characters be italic suggests that the journal is actually called Nature's, which is wrong. Ozob (talk) 14:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think many (any?) reader's would make that mistake, but whatever... — John Cardinal (talk) 15:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, I don't really think it's that big a deal, either, but I do think it's worth trying to make our articles as correct as we can. • That's for pointing out {{'}}; I wasn't familiar with that one. • All of these look ugly in the wikitext. It would be nice if there was a MediaWiki feature to cleanly escape the apostrophe. For example, … of ''Nature''\'s editorials… would make sense to me. Would people watching this conversation be opposed to a suggestion/patch for such a thing? It might (validly) be called yet another bit of idiosyncratic syntax for MediaWiki. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 21:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies, guys. I went with the <i>italic text</i> solution. This still seems like an annoying bug, though, which almost certainly occurs in other articles - I wonder if it's worth filing a bug report over... Robofish (talk) 01:43, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

←←Outdent←←

I don't know that there is anything that could really be done to "fix" it (without adding new syntax). Since the single-quote-mark is not directional, there is no way for the parser to really "know" what someone means. (Maybe you wanted to bold the middle of a long italic phase.) One could look for shortest match first, or try and prefer words (no spaces), etc., but it's always going to be wrong for some usage case. Right? —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 02:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Bold formatting in film articles

Hello, we at WikiProject Films are trying to determine consensus about whether or not bold formatting is appropriate in film articles (beyond the title, of course). MOS:BOLD makes clear the "few special uses" of the formatting, but traditionally, articles under WikiProject Films use the formatting to highlight the names of the actors and their roles in the "Cast" sections. Is it a tradition that needs to be bucked or not? Find discussion here and please share your thoughts! —Erik (talk • contrib) 12:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

This topic is under discussion again at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines‎#Bolding of cast sections. The film project's MOS has for some time read "Pertinent casting information might also be included in this section (or in production), and only then should bolding be used to make the credits stand out from the additional information", and it is currently under discussion as to whether or not this contradicts MOS:BOLD or is a "special case" (using the terminology from this page). Interested editors are invited to comment in the linked discussion. More opinions from MOS-watchers would certainly be welcome. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:22, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Bolding in quotes

Quick question regarding the use of boldface in quotations. I'm quoting a bit of text where the source itself uses boldface to emphasize certain phrases. Should I retain the boldface in the quotation? The text in question can be seen at Big Black#1984: Touring and label signing, in the quotebox on the right. Looking at BOLD, I can't tell whether I should preserve the bolding used in the original source or not. Thanks. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:00, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

According to "Allowable typographical changes" under MOS:QUOTE, we should "generally preserve bold and italics". PL290 (talk)

MoS naming style

There is currently an ongoing discussion about the future of this and others MoS naming style. Please consider the issues raised in the discussion and vote if you wish GnevinAWB (talk) 20:58, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Song titles and WP:ITALICS

Current use seems to be mixed. WP:ITALICS doesn't specifically mention songs, only cantatas and motets / operas, operettas, oratorios are mentioned. Should they be in in italics? I believe they should, considering songs are works of art. If not, the list should preferably reflect that. jonkerz♠ 18:19, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Disregard the previous message, answer found: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (titles)#Quotation marks. jonkerz♠ 18:24, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Reduce 'other uses' and 'contraindications

The section Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(text_formatting)#Other_uses lists cases where bold is used and then goes on to say it is usually applied automatically, I reckon we could summarise this into:

'Wikimarkup automatically emboldens section titles, table headers, definitions and some parts of{{citation}}s.'

Note that this includes one of the points in 'contraindications'. The emphasis part is covered in more detail in 'italics'. That leaves us with other languages, which if we drop all the 'when not to' and stick to 'when to' we could omit this section too. Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 11:36, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Names of works

I understand that names of works are often put in italics. I notice that this guideline says short works (such as short poems) should instead have their title in quotes. What is the reason for this? Is it a rule we should change? It seems a bit odd to me. I notice that it is applied inconsistently. For example, the featured article on To Autumn puts the name in quotes but has the names of the poems Lamia and The Eve of Saint Agnes in italics. This might make sense if Lamina and The Eve of Saint Agnes are longer works... but their names are given in quotes within their own articles. Yaris678 (talk) 23:09, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, yes then that example does not seem consistent with the MoS, however I think each article's author is free to use editorial judgement when it comes to a particular style for that article, and it probably isn't worth nit-picking about. The rule is repeated again at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (titles)#Quotation marks where it provides the little bit of additional explanation: It particularly applies to works that exist as a smaller part of a larger work and gives some examples, but as for the rationale as to why it was decided to do it like that, it could likely be found in either the main MoS talk archives or the archives of WT:Manual of Style (titles) and/or this page's archives, if you're willing to do some digging. -- œ^™

Bolding in tables

Back in the day, it was acceptable to use boldface as an accessible alternative to colouring a table cell – or at least no-one complained on MoS grounds when this list and others similar went through FLC – and it's a rather neater alternative for the sighted majority than scattering random symbols over the table. MOS:BOLD#Contraindications says we should use italics, not boldface, for emphasis in article text. Could someone clarify whether this contraindication definitely also applies to table cells, which I don't really think of as article text? thanks, Struway2 (talk) 09:56, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I see the preceding section, MOS:BOLD#Other_uses, allows bold in table headers, as one of a handful of specific exceptions. Personally I think that's sensible, and it would be preferable to find an alternative scheme for distinguishing things within the table and keep bold for headers only. PL290 (talk) 12:46, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I see that, as well. But your answer to the question immediately above this one points out that MOS:QUOTE requires a use of boldface not included in said "handful of specific exceptions". And as WP:TABLE says little other than don't use tables unless you really have to, I was wondering if the use of boldface in table cells, specifically as a way of highlighting occasional cells in a long (often several screens long) table, as opposed to in article text, has ever actually been considered. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:07, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a specific table in mind? Is it the list you linked above? I think it's too busy: I'd get rid of the bolding on the seasons, the bolding to indicate division changes, the coloring to indicate promotion and relegation, and the coloring to indicate winners and runners-up. I think there are too many rules, but I'm not sure which ones to get rid of. (Maybe all of them?) I realize that this gets rid of almost all the formatting and leaves the table much plainer. That's intentional. Right now I think the visual effects get in the way of presenting the data. Ozob (talk) 23:25, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't have a specific list in mind. The one linked was just an example, which follows a consensus format used in nearly 20 featured lists, so I'm not about to change it on aesthetic grounds :-) Think you might find that removing all visual cues would also get in the way of presenting the data. The question was purely to establish whether the MoS now definitely excludes boldface as an acceptable means of highlighting a table cell. If so, the general format of lists of the same type as the above would have to change, but it's a more general question than that. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 06:48, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, I think the answer is no, boldface isn't definitely excluded. I'm not convinced there are situations where it looks good—I admit that I'm a fan of very plain, very simple layouts, maybe too much of a fan!—but if consensus on a certain article is that the boldface is effective, then I'd say go for it. Ozob (talk) 14:06, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Since this has been dormant for four months, there seems to be consensus, I'll be bold and add emphasis in tables as an exception. Sandman888 (talk) 14:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

There is no consensus here. Just because no one watches and edits this page doesn't mean that no objection in a month means no-one would actually object. PL290 says "keep bold for headers only". Struway and Ozob were discussing the merits of boldface and the later even said "I'm not convinced there are situations where [boldface]. looks good". No-one even proposed the addition to MOS until you came along. You were being bold, I reverted, now discuss. And as I said in the edit summary, Wikipedia:Accessibility#Text says screen readers don't interpret bold so it is not eligible as an alternative way of indicating something that might be coloured. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:54, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Look italics is being used and suggested as an alternative because of MOS#BOLD but it is equally listed as "non-readable" if that's even what the page is saying. Sandman888 (talk) 18:40, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

So pursue that then, not un-supported change that no-one has agreed to and doesn't comply with WP:ACCESS. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:51, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

No I am pointing out your inconsistent interpretation of wp:access. This is agreed to by the above discussion, but not you, well consensus isn't unanimous. Sandman888 (talk) 08:54, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Concerning the accessibility issue: it is true that screen readers don't interpret bold. However, in tables, they do interpret tables headers and table captions. So if the bold is a result of making table headers, it is perfectly fine.

Now if there is bold in the content of the table (not headers nor table captions), that is meant to be a semantic emphasis, it is an accessibility issue. In this case, {{strong}} should be used instead of bold. Yours, Dodoïste (talk) 16:08, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Italics in citation references?

I'm getting conflicting views as to whether the title of a reference that would normally be italicized in an article should be italicized. For example, with regards to video game Super Mario Bros. Deluxe:

Harris, Craig (1999-07-21). "IGN: Super Mario Bros. Deluxe Review". IGN. Retrieved 2008-04-23.

vs.

Harris, Craig (1999-07-21). "IGN: Super Mario Bros. Deluxe Review". IGN. Retrieved 2008-04-23.

What is the convention on this? I'm currently being told two separate things on this. –MuZemike 20:06, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it needs to be italicized because it's part of a title of an external work, hence the quotation marks. You should leave it as the citation template formats it. But if your editorial preference is to italicize it anyway for the sake of consistency or whatever else, then you could use the |work= parameter in conjunction with |title= so it will come out like so:

Harris, Craig (1999-07-21). "IGN: Review". Super Mario Bros. Deluxe. IGN. Retrieved 2008-04-23.

-- œ^™ 15:45, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Table captions

At present there is an objection at WT:FLC to having table captions in bold face (the browser Wikimedia cross-project default) because they are not listed as exceptions to WP:MOSBOLD. It would seem to me that virtually every table caption on Wikipedia uses boldface, so if this guideline is meant to document consensus practice, then table captions should be listed as one of the exceptions. I'm loathe to alter the guideline without discussion, so does anyone have any comments? --RexxS (talk) 17:07, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Most uses of {{infobox}} have the same table captions, and bold tables captions are used since 2006 (albeit not frequently in the articles content). So I believe table captions are an exception to the bold face guidelines. Just my opinion though. Yours, Dodoïste (talk) 17:22, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

If that's the community norms then that's the norm. No objection here to amending the guideline. -- œ^™ 18:11, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Rather than wait an indeterminate amount of time, I'll go ahead and "boldly" add the exception. At the very least, it can be reverted and discussed. --RexxS (talk) 16:26, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Just for the record: The bold caption is an intentional layout make especially for wikitables, defined by developers at http://bits.wikimedia.org/skins-1.5/common/shared.css?283-5. It is used with consistency across all Wikimedia Projects. Dodoïste (talk) 21:04, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you're quite right, and I've amended my comment to reflect that. --RexxS (talk) 22:48, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Italics to distinguish from common English words...

In Even (band) I've italicized the band name in the article text to distinguish it from the common English word "even", rather than reformulate every sentence so it is distinguishable by its capitalization alone. Opinions? Better ideas? --Lexein (talk) 17:02, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

This probably isn't a good idea since they also have an album named Even. Kaldari (talk) 21:53, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Just call them "the band" in sentences where confusion would otherwise be possible... --A. di M. (talk) 12:28, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

MoS Italics and projects

Hi

I am finding that several projects are italicising titles (in articles and in article titles)- is there anywhere I can go to see some guidelines on how this should be done? (A list of MoS'/guidelines for each project etc.)

I know there is a Milhist MoS, but it seems there are many projects that just use italics for things within their own field of interest without it being listed in their own guidelines or MoS. When copyediting their articles it would be great to know exactly what to do with certain italicised names.

I am copyediting an article about a Dungeons and Dragons related BLP - Here they have italicised various dungeons and dragons modules which, to me, are roughly at the same level as a short story, or perhaps slightly lower than that. As such I have de-italicised them.

There seems to be nothing in the Toys or Boardgames projects notes which relate to this. However I find thy have italicised Monopoly throughout the article. I understand this is a particularly well know one, but it does not seem to be covered in any style guide that I can find.

Thanks Chaosdruid (talk) 15:32, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I believe the modules should be italicized, as they are technically released as books. A short story is something that would be released inside of another publication, like a magazine or a compilation book with an editor. However, this would mean that an adventure published in a magazine, like Dungeon, for example, would have quotes instead of italics. I think the important distinction is whether the title is the title of the entire published work. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 16:20, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

As an aside, there was a similar thread recently at Talk:Dungeons & Dragons/Archives/ 8#Italicized game name. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 16:29, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

In which case, it is merely a case of updating each project's style guide so that it is clear which are and are not to be italicised. As far as I am concerned the game Dungeons and Dragons was a series of books: the Monster manual, Players guide etc. which were necessary for the game, and as such should be in italics and so the game itself. I am not sure about an individual module, though many of them are fairly substantial, I was counting them as more equal to a TV series episodes, which are not italicised. Chaosdruid (talk) 18:47, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

That's a fair point about the episodic quality. I think the guidelines here and here, when taken together, would favor italics. The first includes the term pamphlets; modules are more substantial than that. The second says "series of books", which I think modules qualify as. The second link also says of quotation marks: "It particularly applies to works that exist as a smaller part of a larger work." Since each module is its own work, I'd say no quotation marks. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 19:41, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

For the D&D series of modules, the List of Dungeons & Dragons modules has them listed as separate series, which I took to mean that most are episodes of those series. Indeed after just clicking one at random it tells me that it is a 32 page booklet Ghost of Lion Castle. I would say that these sort of things need to be discussed within the individual projects though, as that is where the style guides are made. Here I am just trying to establish the procedure for determination within projects and to see if there should be any additions to cover the broader aspects. FOr example is a boardgame he equivalent of a computer game (which are italicised). Chaosdruid (talk) 10:35, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Other fonts?

Someone had used wiki mark up to generate the font now.com in Now (magazine), for some reason. I removed it here. I think that was the right thing to do. Is this covered here? I don't see it. If not, should it be? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:26, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Old related discussion: /Archive 1#Typefaces

I agree it was the right thing to do. I prefer to avoid monospace typefaces in normal text where possible, though I acknowledge they often get used in some parts of the Internet and some modern books. Such a radical font change usually looks messy (see Ransom note effect), at least in my browser where the typefaces are apparently different MOS:FONTSIZEs. I generally prefer to use MOS:ITALICS or quotes for emphasis of computer text. An exception might be to precisely show a string of ASCII symbols that wouldn’t be clear in the normal typeface, but domain names and URLs are clear enough in ordinary or italic type.

Anyhow, the issue should be mentioned in the MOS, even (or especially!) if everyone dislikes my style. Vadmium (talk) 03:34, 29 March 2011 (UTC).

CSS font-family definitions

Some articles use CSS for a font-family definition (currently, it is 105 articles, see "font-family" - Search results).

The problem is that many of these definitions use non-free fonts that typically ship with Windows, but are unavailable to other users. In many cases, no fallback font has been defined.

More generally speaking, I think that font-family definitions are a bad idea in most cases. They are difficult to maintain. They lead to unexpected alternations in the typeface design. This is especially annoying for users who have carefully chosen their own font settings. -- machᵗᵃˡᵏ 10:10, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Down to 55 now! Kaldari (talk) 21:37, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Internet Sites and WP:ITALICS

One italicizes periodical titles, such as New York Times, New England Journal of Medicine, etc. One also italicizes internet-only publications such as Salon. What about blogs? It seems to me that they should also be italicized like The Huffington Post. But, I could not find any mention of this in WP:ITALICS. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 16:29, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, what's the standard on this? Right now our articles are totally inconsistant (even within individual artilces, like Wikipedia). Also, {{Infobox website}} currently italicizes all website names regardless of what type of website it is. Kaldari (talk) 20:40, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

It looks like the MLA and APA recommend italicizing website titles. Anyone have access to the Chicago Manual of Style? Kaldari (talk) 21:00, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Wired Style: Principles of English Usage in the Digital Age says that websites should sometimes be italicized and sometimes shouldn't. In particular, online newspapers, magazines, and news sites (like Salon or Boston.com) should be italicized. Online encyclopedias (like Encarta) should be italicized. However, "homepages" or websites primarily intended as advertisements for a company or product should not be italicized. Unfortunately, the book does not elaborate on the massive gray area in between. Kaldari (talk) 04:11, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

It looks like our usage is pretty close to the Wired guidelines, but inconsistent. Would anyone mind if I try to add some conservative guidance on italicizing website names to our guidelines here (based loosely on our existing practice and the Wired suggestions above)? Kaldari (talk) 04:24, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

The Yahoo! Manual of Style, printed and on-line, which (unlike the MLA or APA) is directed specifically to usage on the Internet and on-line media, doesn't recommend italicizing web sites, nor are its examples italicized. It's not clear how it would treat the on-line equivalents of italicized publications or performances, but I don't think it positively recommends against italicizing them on line.—— Shakescene (talk) 03:14, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

What do you guys think of the following wording:

The titles of websites may or may not be italicized depending on the type of site and what kid of content it features. Online magazines, newspapers, and news sites should generally be italicized (such as Salon.com or The Huffington Post). However, websites which simply aggregate news and have no original content should not be italicized. Online encyclopedias and dictionaries (like Wikipedia or Urban Dictionary) should be italicized. Websites primarily intended as advertisements for companies or products (like McDonalds.com) should not be italicized. Other types of websites should be decided on a case-by-case basis reflecting usage in reliable sources.

Kaldari (talk) 05:13, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Isn't HuffPo a news aggregrator? --TorriTorri(^talk/_contribs) 05:48, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but they also have original content. The distinction is whether or not the site is purely an aggregator or also has original content (according to Wired's style guide at least). I've rephrased the section above to be more clear. Kaldari (talk) 05:56, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I think this is the wrong way to approach this problem. The New York Times is italicized because it's the proper name of a newspaper. In the same way, Salon.com and The Huffington Post are proper names for newsmagazine, so they should be italicized. I think it's irrelevant that they're online. Ozob (talk) 11:33, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

What would be your suggestion for clarifying when to italicize websites then? Kaldari (talk) 20:59, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, the more I think about it, the more I like MLA's and APA's solution (quoted above). When a website's name is a proper name (e.g., Salon.com or Boston.com), italicize it. When a website is generally identified by some other proper name, italicize it as you would if it were not a website (e.g., The Huffington Post, since it's a newsmagazine). How's that sound? Ozob (talk) 01:28, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't really understand your suggested wording. What do you mean by "proper name"? Is McDonalds.com a proper name? Kaldari (talk) 00:35, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, I think proper name may be the wrong word. Let me try again; and please keep in mind that I mean this as a proposal so I'd like feedback on whether this sounds reasonable. I mean something like this: The name of the website at huffingtonpost.com is The Huffington Post. When referring to that website, we generally use its name, not its address, and that name is italicized according to the usual rules for names of newsmagazines. The name of the website at salon.com is Salon.com. When a website is named after its address, we italicize it. How's that? (I find myself wondering, however, why we write Wikipedia and not Wikipedia.) Ozob (talk) 03:18, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Two problems. First, I don't think it's obvious to everyone that The Huffington Post is a newsmagazine. I think most people would consider it a "news site" or "online newspaper" so we should address those cases, not ask people to imagine that websites aren't websites and then name them. Second, there are lots of websites named after their address that should not be italicized (like Answers.com or Monster.com). And some websites go by their address sometimes and then sometimes don't, like JobStreet.com. So I don't think that's an effective rule. Kaldari (talk) 04:38, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Good points. I think I'm stuck. The best option I can think of is to follow the website's own usage. Ozob (talk) 16:22, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

In that case we wouldn't even italicize The New York Times.[1][2] How about a simplified version of my original proposal: "The title of a website may or may not be italicized depending on the type of site and what kind of content it features. Online magazines, newspapers, and news sites with original content should generally be italicized (such as Salon.com or The Huffington Post). Online encyclopedias and dictionaries (like Wikipedia or Urban Dictionary) should be italicized. Other types of websites should be decided on a case-by-case basis reflecting usage in reliable sources." How does that sound? Kaldari (talk) 23:05, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I worry that this rule is too complex and too content-dependent. What if a news aggregator whose name was formerly unitalicized reinvents itself as a news site with original content?

A real example: At one time, Reddit consisted almost exclusively of user-submitted links and comments. It is still mostly that, but now they do occasional interviews or Q&As. What should be done in that situation? It seems obvious to me that a citation to a Reddit interview should italicize "Reddit" in the same way that any source's name should be italicized. But the name of the site isn't usually italicized. Ozob (talk) 12:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, what if I just changed the last sentence to say "Other types of websites should be decided on a case-by-case basis." Any other suggestions? I don't think we're going to be able to come up with guidelines that will work for every case, but we at least need something to start with since right now we have no guidance whatsoever (which is why we have no consistency). Kaldari (talk) 21:42, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Sure, I think that's an acceptable guideline to have at the moment. I agree that we need something to start with. As time goes on we can refine it. Ozob (talk) 19:28, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Per the discussion above, some basic guidelines have been added to the Manual of Style. Hopefully we can further refine them to cover more cases in the future, but this should at least cover the cases for which there seems to be consensus. Kaldari (talk) 20:17, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

• New media is certainly posing challenges as to how we present them stylistically. I'm still at a loss as to how one is meant to apply the rules here, though, given it's a blurry line about 'original content' and the extent to which that is the case. What about 'BBC News', for example, Reuters or Agence France-Presse? As someone commented above, sites of traditional journals are easier to deal with – I often lop off the '.com' and then italicise. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:10, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Anyone here to answer the question above about capitalising BBC News? I notice the article does not so stylise, so would I be correct in assuming non-italicisation? --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 12:15, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
    • I would style it BBC News according to the guidelines. The caveat about 'original content' is mostly to exclude services such as Google News, which are not creative works, but simply aggregation services. Kaldari (talk) 18:39, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Sorry, I thought BBC News was a website. BBC News Online is the website. BBC News should not be italicized. Kaldari (talk) 20:31, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
      • Personally, I'm split, I treat web versions of PRINT media as taking italics, but of AUDIOVISUAL media as not taking them (cf. Cyberpresse, which aggregates Gesca newspaper, but CBC/radio-canada.ca). Circéus (talk) 02:49, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
        • What about websites like The Huffington Post, which is almost universally italicized but has never had a print version? Kaldari (talk) 20:18, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
          • I was referring specifically to the BBC example: BBC being by and large an audiovisual content producer, I personally wouldn't italicize the name. I'd italicize HuffPo, and probably places like PhysOrg or Science Daily... but I'll admit I'm not entirely consistent with it (see for example 2011 in science). Circéus (talk) 07:25, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I realise I've kind of missed the boat here, but I hate this. Surely, the guidelines as written now mean that every instance of "Wikipedia" should be changed to Wikipedia, right down to "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" on every page... I am strongly opposed to this. I remember when the guidelines were clarified so that webzines stopped being italicised, as they were not periodicals, and the idea of italicising something like BBC News or bbc.com strikes me as ridiculous. J Milburn (talk) 19:29, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:IDONTLIKEIT isn't very helpful. How do you think that italics should be applied to website titles and why? Our existing guidelines are about as conservative as you can get. Most style guides recommend italicizing all website titles. We only recommend it for the cases that roughly correspond to "old media" italicized works: magazines, newspapers, dictionaries, and encyclopedias. Kaldari (talk) 20:16, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) triple, actually, write things at one, please This came up at Template talk:FishBase. Personally, I prefer italicising pretty much all website names. However, it doesn't seem like a good idea to have a guideline that states that every website that's not clearly an enyclopedia or news site be argued out individually, without any idea of what the criteria are. —innotata 20:40, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I changed my thinking a bit after posting my initial response. I agree that it's frustrating that we don't offer more guidance on how to decide whether or not to italicize websites. Before a few weeks ago, however, we had no guidance whatsoever, so at least we're making progress. If you read through the discussion above, you'll see that I proposed a few more criteria, but was not able to get consensus for most of them. If you have any ideas for criteria, please share them for discussion. Unfortunately, this seems to be an area that is very difficult to get people to agree on, as everyone seems to have their own style. Kaldari (talk) 20:48, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I am in favour of something very simple such as only italicising websites if they have a non-virtual presence that would be italicised. That aside, as and when consensus is reached I recommend an RfC - there are not many page watchers here and if anything is decided that differs significantly from pre-existing practice it will affect very large numbers of articles. Ben MacDui 07:20, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I completely agree with Ben MacDui. Accusing me if shouting that I don't like it is all well and good, but when you're changing a guideline to suggest that our website header itself is formatted incorrectly... J Milburn (talk) 15:56, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

An RfC is fine with me, as long as it is neutrally worded. It should also encourage people to cite examples of the styles used by other websites, media, and/or style guides rather than just giving their personal opinions. Kaldari (talk) 17:44, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Tangentially related, I found it annoying that we gave two uncitable sources as examples. Yes, I know we can talk about Urban Dictionary without citing it, but I think it sets a good example to use sources that are citable within Wikipedia's guidelines. So I've changed "(like Wikipedia or Urban Dictionary)" to "(like Scholarpedia or Merriam-Webster Online)". Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 05:03, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Vectors, matrices vs boldface

I have seen many articles about vectors and matrices that use boldface notations. Should these cases be added to boldface usage? See also: Euclidean vector#Representations and Matrix (mathematics)#Notation --Octra Bond (talk) 01:06, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I think it is quite unusual to put a matrix in boldface. I realize that our matrix (mathematics) article does this, but I think it's an outlier: Most mathematical writing does not use bold type for matrices. I don't think that using bold type for matrices is objectionable, but I think it is better to give more common examples such as vectors and standard objects such as Q, especially since (from a typographic standpoint) vectors and matrices are so similar. Ozob (talk) 10:43, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Italics - coding

"The most accessible way to indicate emphasis is with HTML <em> tags or by enclosing the emphasized text within an {{em}} template." Where does the use of two single-quote marks fit (this would be italics over emphasis)? Should we not use them – or are they parsed into HTML as something like this? If it doesn't make any difference, should we not merely suggest people use this notation?. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 09:03, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

RFC: restructuring of the Manual of Style

Editors may be interested in this RFC, along with the discussion of its implementation:

Should all subsidiary pages of the Manual of Style be made subpages of WP:MOS?

It's big; and it promises huge improvements. Great if everyone can be involved. Noetica^Tea? 00:49, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Colour

What is the logic behind allowing users to colour templates such as {{navbox}} but not prose? I would suggest that we should develop a set of guideline to help improve the current usage

1. Some combinations of colours can be difficult or impossible for colourblind users to read and should not be used see here for more
2. Some organisations, teams, TV programmes etc may have a combination of colours associated with them which can be used to colour templates however if these colours imped readability they should not be used (examples 1 and [3]
3. In the case where an article has several templates from a two or more topics the standard colouring should be used in order to avoid a rainbow effect [4]

Gnevin (talk) 00:26, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

• Color is good for identification, I think. We have color in infoboxes, to distinguish between different rankings of historic U.S. buildingss, for example. Color should be used with discretion and common sense, not for "cool"- or "pretty"-ness. One problem I see similar to the above linked examples is college navboxes using school colors, which can be fine in certain cases and extremely annoying in others. Such navboxes, when stacked on top of each other, do present very annoying color combinations. For example, see Stony_Brook_University#footer. If you notice, the red color of the first navbox is not even the same red as the one in the school logo in the infobox at the top. That red, which is darker and much easier on the eyes, would be a more logical choice than the bright red in the navbox. The orange navbox there, for Big South Conference, is also off-color (the orange is brighter than the actual logo) and the blue border is only distracting. I propose a slightly differently worded set of guidelines, along the lines of:

1. Keeping in line with Wikipedia:Manual of Style (accessibility)#Color, colors used in navboxes should not make navigating difficult for colorblind and/or visually impaired readers.
2. With that in mind, colors are useful for identification and appropriate, representative, and accessible colors may be used with discretion and common sense. In general, text color should not be anything other than black or white (excluding the standard colors of hyperlinks), and background colors should contrast the text color enough to make the template easily readable.
3. An "appropriate, representative" color, when intended to identify with an organization's logo or branding, should use the most prominent accessible color in the logo. For example, Template:Pink Panther should be using a background of F6D4E6 (the color of the body in File:Pink Panther.png) rather than E466A9 (the color of the background in that image). The choice of color should, again, be made with discretion and consideration of all Wikipedia readers. A representative color may also be the one present in an article's infobox (if included). For example the navbox associated with NRHPs and other related categorizations should conform to Wikipedia's NRHP colors legend.
4. In the case that no properly identifying, accessible color exists; or the subject of the navbox should not be identified with a particular color (e.g., an average biography), the default navbox color should be used. If an article includes several navboxes whose colors conflict with each other, discretion should be used to minimize the disruption by using the default colors for that particular article.

• Thoughts? /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:45, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I haven't weighed the substance of this proposal carefully enough, although I generally believe in freedom and variety in such matters so long as most people (including the colour-blind and those with small screens or low resolution) can read it easily. But like schools and colleges, sports teams' navigation boxes can also raise questions about colour, that could probably benefit from guidance. For example, I tried to make the navigation box for San Francisco Giants more readable by switching from orange on black to black on orange. In fact, black, chocolate brown, deep forest green, deep purple, indigo or navy blue will cause difficulty if they're the background for anything other than white or yellow. Better to make them the text (or font) colour. And some combinations probably just won't work very well at all, like cherry/black or red/green. —— Shakescene (talk) 04:42, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

While accepting that I have seen examples of garishness, I'm nervous about applying rules without a great deal of discussion (which is what we are doing). Some things can be fixed without needing a new set of rules. For example:

• The boxes at the bottom of Stoney Brook were garish; I made (an admittedly tiny) improvement here simply by changing the order of the boxes. I am not known for my artistic skills, so perhaps someone with those skills could pick a better order.
• The observation that the Stoney Brook navbox color doesn't match the official Stoney Brook color could be fixed by using the official Stoney Brook color. I'd be hard-pressed to expect opposition.  Done
• Similarly, the Big South Conference navbox should use the correct color.
• I've adopted a personal rule that when I see five or more related navboxes, I create a collapsible navbox for the all; this reduces some of the possible garishness. See Diana Taurasi for an example.

Other comments:

• I have seen color combinations that look bad, so I'm sympathetic to requiring text in white or black, whichever makes sense, but I like the look of the teams colors gold on purple of the Phoenix Mercury templates, so I'm very reluctant to buy into a rule that would prohibit this.
• Of course, one person's attractive combination is another person's nightmare. Shakescene changed the colors of the San Francisco Giants, but they were reverted with the edit summary "yuch"
• The NHRP color combination may be official, but the NRHP color isn't one I would choose.--SPhilbrickT 21:17, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I've fixed the Stoney Brook colors, which doesn't diminish Fetchcomm's point, but I'm mentioning in case you don't see the problem that did exist.--SPhilbrickT 21:26, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

1. Keeping in line with Wikipedia:Manual of Style (accessibility)#Color, colors used in navboxes should not make navigating difficult for colorblind and/or visually impaired readers.
2. Colors are useful for identification and appropriate, representative, and accessible colors may be used with discretion and common sense. In general, text color should not be anything other than black or white (excluding the standard colors of hyperlinks), and background colors should contrast the text color enough to make the template easily readable.
3. An "appropriate, representative" color, when intended to identify with an organization's logo or branding, should use the most prominent accessible color in the logo. For example, Template:Pink Panther should be using a background of F6D4E6 (the color of the body in File:Pink Panther.png) rather than E466A9 (the color of the background in that image). A representative color may also be the one present in an article's infobox (if included). For example the navbox associated with NRHPs and other related categorizations should conform to Wikipedia's NRHP colors legend.
4. In the case that no properly identifying, accessible color exists; or the subject of the navbox should not be identified with a particular color (e.g., an average biography), the default navbox color should be used.
5. If an article includes several navboxes whose colors conflict with each other, discretion should be used to minimize the disruption by using the default colors for that particular article.

[5] these colours can be a major issue from some Gnevin (talk) 16:08, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

As a member of the accessibility WikiProject, I fully support Gnevin's proposal. Though it won't be easy to enforce, it's a great step forward.

I'm quite sad that Frietjes left. It shows how much of an issue it was to him. Its personal style sheet shows that he needs a high level of contrast indeed. The most immediate and easy solution for his particular case then is trough site-wide CSS. All colors needs to be generated from the defaults in commons.css, so that he can override it. That's the only way for him to be able to use Wikipedia.

Or at least it was until now, as I have another solution. But I fear its too late. Anyway, I made a code at Wikipedia:Style sheets for visually impaired users overrides the color in all navboxes, solving his problems. I hope we can show it to him, I hope it's not too late. Does anyone have his e-mail? Or a way to contact him?

Or could an admin add this code to his personal .css style sheet, in case he is still using his account as a reader? Cheers, Dodoïste (talk) 21:24, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

My own take on this (as someone who has fought tooth and nail to rid templates of arbitrary styling for years now) is that the MoS should have a dedicated page for templates containing the following advice:

1. Try to use an existing template if one exists
2. If an existing template nearly matches what you want to do, extend it rather than forking it
3. Don't use templates to mock things up (i.e. approximating the colour presently used on a company website, or mimicking a logo using a special font)
4. Don't use colour unless there's a very good reason (strong direct identity for the subject with that shade, or a well-reasoned accessibility argument)
5. If you must use colour, use a similar one to existing templates of that type

Anyway, I applaud the general motivation behind this proposal, and I'm only sorry I never saw last week's navbox debate. Please keep me in the loop if this discussion goes anywhere else. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 14:22, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Here is a first step, per this discussion. I hope it is consensual and we can go further. Cheers, Dodoïste (talk) 20:13, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

That edit doesn't really do much for me , it seems to repeat itself a lot Gnso evin (talk)

Feel free to improve it rather than reverting. I'm not a native english speaker, so my wording my seem confused. Anyway, I guess most people see a difference between "color contrast in prose text" and "color contrast in templates". I want to address the contrast issues within navboxes and such, which I believe is missing in the current version of this MoS. Dodoïste (talk) 00:14, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Multi-part episodes with same name

Should grouped episodes; multi-parters; which exists of more than one episode with the same name be in quotes (as an individual episode) or italicized (as a bigger work). I know that Doctor Who uses italics (ex. The End of Time), but there are many instances (ex. Over There (Fringe)) were it's just quoted like an individual episode would. So basically should it be "Title" two parter consisting of "Title (Part 1)" and "Title (Part 2)" or Title two parter consisting of "Title (Part 1)" and "Title (Part 2)". _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 18:23, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

To me "Over there" is the same as a short story, within a series, something which is covered by this section. Chaosdruid (talk) 00:43, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

RFC:Colours in navigation templates

Should the following guidance about the usage of colours in navigation templates be add to this MoS Gnevin (talk) 20:04, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

1. Keeping in line with Wikipedia:Manual of Style (accessibility)#Color, colors used in navboxes should not make navigating difficult for colorblind and/or visually impaired readers.
2. Colors are useful for identification and appropriate, representative, and accessible colors may be used with discretion and common sense. In general, text color should not be anything other than black or white (excluding the standard colors of hyperlinks), and background colors should contrast the text color enough to make the template easily readable.
3. An "appropriate, representative" color, when intended to identify with an organization's logo or branding, should use the most prominent accessible color in the logo. For example, Template:Pink Panther should be using a background of F6D4E6 (the color of the body in File:Pink Panther.png) rather than E466A9 (the color of the background in that image). A representative color may also be the one present in an article's infobox (if included). For example the navbox associated with NRHPs and other related categorizations should conform to Wikipedia's NRHP colors legend.
4. In the case that no properly identifying, accessible color exists; or the subject of the navbox should not be identified with a particular color (e.g., an average biography), the default navbox color should be used.
5. If an article includes several navboxes whose colors conflict with each other, discretion should be used to minimize the disruption by using the default colors for that particular article.

• Support principle although definitely open to paring down a little on the wording. I think I proposed some of the above, but it's rather wordy, so maybe some fresh eyes can help make it a bit more simple/clear? /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 21:04, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment Yeah the wording needs some refining which was one of the reasons I opened the RFC, to see if we could get more input .Gnevin (talk) 21:51, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Being colorblind myself, I support any initiative to make Wikipedia more colorblind-friendly. I strongly support point 1. I also support points 2, 4, and 5. I'm somewhat confused as to what point 3 is supposed to mean. The words "appropriate" and "accessible" in points 2 and 3 are a bit vague and can use some clearing-up. I'm confused as to their specific meanings within this context. ThemFromSpace 22:51, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Point three is basically to mean that, when you're picking colors, you want to choose one that is both representative of the subject ("appropriate" as in "relevant"), but still easy to read or friendly to color-blind readers such as yourself ("accessible"). If you could help clarify that one, it would be much appreciated. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 00:01, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support in principle, but needs more thought -

• MOS already has Wikipedia:MOS#Color_coding ... is this proposal to replace that? or add to it?
• This proposal uses the word "template" ... I presume you mean "Navigation templates", in which case you should use that latter phrase to minimize confusion.
• See existing MOS guideline Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(accessibility)#Color .. any new color guidance should be consistent with that, BUT do not want to duplicate the guidance in two separate MOS pages, or they'll get out-of-sync
• Projects often pick colors that are intended to be used throughout the project's navboxes/sidebars, etc
• Item (3) above is probably not good guidance: the main color of a company/topic may have poor contrast or be too close to black or white. For example, I can barely read the color F6D4E6 used above in (3) as a recommended color! It may be better in many cases to select a higher contrast varient of the main color.
• item (4) talks about the "default" navbox color: what is the default? is there a particular NavBox you have in mind? Or are you referring to the common blue found in many WP project pages (e.g. at the top of WP:ANI)? If the latter: explicitly name the color.

Otherwise, it is a good idea to clarify how colors should/are used in Nav templates. --Noleander (talk) 04:14, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

1. F6D4E6 used above is suggested as a background colour for dark text. Therefore not being able to read it when n white is preferable. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 08:13, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

The default is the colours you get if you don't specify and styling , have changed to Navigation templates Gnevin (talk) 11:53, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. Like some others above, I agree with many of the ideas being suggested, although perhaps the wording could be improved. But I have a question about number 5: What exactly do you mean by colors that "conflict" with one another. Is this an aesthetic criterion, and if so, how do we prevent it from being completely subjective? Or did you have something else in mind? --RL0919 (talk) 12:03, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I say ditto to RL0919's comment posted above. — Senator2029 (talk) 14:36, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Like WP:ICONDECORATION it is a aesthetic criterion. For colours in conflict with each other see Giovanni_Trapattoni#External_links we could put a number on it say for example the use of x or more discrete colours in a group of navigation templates creates a so called rainbow effect Gnevin (talk) 12:09, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure WP:ICONDECORATION is a good parallel, because it says to avoid using icons just for aesthetic purposes, whereas point 5 above seems to encourage changing colors for aesthetic reasons. Moreover, the "conflict" depends on the interaction of colors across multiple templates that happen to be on a particular article. What happens when you coordinate the colors of the templates that appear on articles A, B and C, but one of them also appears on articles D, E, and F alongside other templates that now "conflict" with it? --RL0919 (talk) 13:14, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Well what I would suggest is that the versions on d,e,f etc would use the default colour Gnevin (talk) 17:32, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I think as long as we maintain sensible minimum contrast ratios and the colors are only enhancement rather than integral to the functionality, it'll be fine. I don't think we need all the specific instructions that are proposed here. Gigs (talk) 17:01, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with you, Gigs, as I strongly believe in just using common sense, but an earlier proposal about removing color/styling options from navboxes altogether ended in a consensus of instead figuring out a guide to when colors are appropriate for navboxes, after a rash of poorly-colored templates. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 17:22, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

• I'm certainly friendly to point #1, which strikes me as a good one. Beyond that, I'd be wary of going too far down the line of instruction creep. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:01, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Some times creep is good if it deals with an agree problem. Gnevin (talk) 09:55, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Also just stumbled on this Wikipedia:Deviations#Styles_and_markup_optionsGnevin (talk) 09:55, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

• I don't like "appropriate" in #2. The guideline should, as much as possible, discourage editors from adding arbitrary colours. The use of the Pink Panther in #3 is likewise inappropriate: that the Panther may be a specific shade of pink does not imply the sort of strong association we are going for here, and in practical terms the very light pink suggested is actually a terrible choice for navboxes as it has far less contrast against the background white than the default navbox shade does. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:48, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

  What matters is the contrast of text on its backgound color. The contrast of navbox backgound color on another backroung color is much less of an issue. We're not at a stage where we are trying to make good design choices (sadly). We're only trying to make those poor design choices less of a bother for colorblind users. So for now, this very light pink will have to do, it is representative of the navbox poor colors anyway. Dodoïste (talk) 00:28, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

So, what do we do now Gnevin? Your proposal is great, and that's what we should aim for in the end. But might I suggest we try to achieve a smaller improvement for now, in order to reach more consensus? Cheers, Dodoïste (talk) 00:28, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

There a number of changes that users would like to see. So I've created User:Gnevin/colours, if users can edit this it's easier than editing here

{{User:Gnevin/colours}} Gnevin (talk) 21:44, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose #4, Support others. Series of related navboxes often have a color associated with them to visually tie articles in a certain topic together. This is both useful and widely done in practice. Honestly, I think this is a stronger reason to give a navbox a color than the reason given in #3. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 23:59, 24 July 2011 (UTC)