Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Text formatting

Boldface - organisms

Hello there. MOS:LEAD states under Organisms that "When a common (vernacular) name is used as the article title, the boldfaced common name is followed by the italic boldfaced scientific name in round parentheses in the first sentence of the lead." This article (WP:MOSTEXT) has a section on Bold (MOS:BOLD) that does not include this advice. I suggest that there is value in including the sentence from MOS:LEAD under the Bold section titled Other uses (MOS:BOLD#OTHER). It would be helpful to new users if all of the BOLD information could be found largely in the one place. What are the views of other editors, please? 14.2.206.29 (talk) 03:56, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

MOS:BOLD already says: "Boldface is often applied to the first occurrence of the article's title word or phrase in the lead." That should by sufficient here – anyone who wants to know the details can easily follow the wikilink. Gawaon (talk) 08:06, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

This is MOS:BOLDFACE - everything that an editor should need to know about the use of bold face should be found in this one policy, of which some of its details can be reflected in other WP policies, and not the other way around. WP should be making its major policies easy to follow, and not require editors to go hunting on links elsewhere to find one phrase somewhere in another policy document that they may not be aware of, especially when the link provided at MOS:BOLDFACE does not take you to the section on organisms. How hard is it to get something so simple included on the page? 14.2.206.29 (talk) 21:39, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

So here we are a week later. No change. I will assume that my simple request for some WP:POL clarity has come to naught. 14.2.199.154 (talk) 08:49, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

For what it's worth, there's a search box at the top of each MOS page where you could search for "boldface". I think our present situational structure is much superior than grouping guidelines more by surface-level commonalities. Remsense ‥ 论 08:54, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Is using SMALLFONT on lists of references compulsory?

In an edit summary here, an editor claims that using small font (i.e 90%) is mandatory for all references, including lists of references, and therefore using refbegin and refend templates is compulsory - is this correct? It produces very small text which isn't easy to read.Nigel Ish (talk) 23:27, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

The present wording of MOS:SMALLFONT, plus footnote, is rather clear: The general font size for reference sections is 90% of the page's default. It is a guideline, i.e. a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though occasional exceptions may apply. I do not see any exception that would apply here. Remsense ‥ 论 23:34, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

90% text is absolutely tiny on Monobook - this is bordering on an accessibility issue - we should not be intentionally making articles harder to read.Nigel Ish (talk) 23:51, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

You could suggest the base font size for the skin be increased, perhaps? Remsense ‥ 论 23:53, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Also, if personal assistance in making it easier for you read would be helpful for the time being, let me know. Remsense ‥ 论 23:55, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Italics for unknown names

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

Semi-protected edit request on 27 December 2024

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

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

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

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

 Done DonIago (talk) 14:39, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Presenting translations of proper names

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

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

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

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

Confusion regarding italics for introduction of terms

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

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

Smaller?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion at Template talk:Lang § langar vs. Script/Arabic in "Native name" parameters, and other cases

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

Purpose of MOS:ETY, which redirects here

 You are invited to join the discussion at MOS talk:ETY § Purpose. — W.andrea (talk) 21:21, 2 March 2025 (UTC)