Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Text formatting/Archive 8: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 03:26, 1 October 2022

Revision as of 03:29, 18 December 2022

Line 125:

**{{reply|SMcCandlish}} what about delinquent cases such as [[Wikipedia#Methods of access]] and the 170k articles linked above -- should they all be rewritten to comply with the current MOS? the MOS is not cast in stone, it should reflect the actual style usage in Wikipedia. [[User:Fgnievinski|fgnievinski]] ([[User talk:Fgnievinski|talk]]) 01:21, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

***Yes, they should be corrected. Using the wrong HTML element for the type of list is beyond an MoS fault, but is also a well-formed HTML fault. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 01:01, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

==Proseline plus bolding==

Hi all. I see we have relevant threads above. Did I do the wrong thing in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wellington_Formation&diff=1081507302&oldid=1063648778&diffmode=source this edit] if you search for ";Upper shale"? I thought MOS says that we aren't allowed to do semicolon bolding for fake subsections like that, right? And as with the above threads, I'm thinking that we don't bold the front of each line of lists. But that's moot because we shouldn't have trivial lists according to [[WP:PROSELINE]], right? It seems to me that, aside from technical word precision by a subject expert, this is supposed to be prose instead of a list. Right? Or did I make a mistake here? Is this some exception in a scientific context as detailed on [[Talk:Wellington Formation]]? Thank you. — <span style="font-variant:small-caps">[[User:Smuckola|Smuckola]][[User talk:Smuckola|(talk)]]</span> 08:53, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

== Italicising links ==

Hi, can I just check, when italicising a link is it OK to place your apostrophes either side of the square brackets, like this:

<nowiki>''[[An article]]''</nowiki>

Or should you pipe the link and place the apostrophes within the brackets, like this:

<nowiki>[[An article|''An article'']]</nowiki>

I've always used the first method and thought I was tidying up [[Hallelujah (disambiguation)]] when I switched a number of links from the latter style to the former. However, that got reverted so I wanted to check if I was doing it right. Cheers, [[User:HornetMike|HornetMike]] ([[User talk:HornetMike|talk]]) 19:31, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

:From what I can tell the quotes are currently pretty much always outside the link; I don't really see an argument for putting them inside. Might be worth adding that to the MOS. &horbar;[[User:Jochem van Hees|Jochem van Hees]] ([[User talk:Jochem van Hees|talk]]) 22:08, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

::If only part of the link text is italic, you'll have use <nowiki>[[Trent Affair|''Trent'' Affair]]</nowiki>, but if the whole phase is italic, <nowiki>''[[An article]]''</nowiki> is much preferred to typing the link target twice. Some editors object to edits that do not affect how the article is rendered. That might be the reason your edit was reverted. [[User:Indefatigable|Indefatigable]] ([[User talk:Indefatigable|talk]]) 22:53, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

:::So someone sees an edit they think is useless and... makes another equally useless edit in response? How does that make sense? &horbar;[[User:Jochem van Hees|Jochem van Hees]] ([[User talk:Jochem van Hees|talk]]) 01:44, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

::::Thanks all. I also added a couple of Alan Bennett works in the same edit and those didn't get reverted. So it goes - wanted to be sure I hadn't missed some style guide element I wasn't aware of! I'd agree that adding to MOS might be useful - although this is such a big page I wasn't absolutely sure this wasn't covered already! Cheers, [[User:HornetMike|HornetMike]] ([[User talk:HornetMike|talk]]) 09:55, 17 June 2022 (UTC)