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

Revision as of 03:43, 4 August 2023

Revision as of 03:45, 30 September 2023

Line 200:

:{{talkquote|...gave him the honorific title {{lang|hi|Vidyasagar}} ('Ocean of Knowledge'; from [[Sanskrit]] {{lang|sa|vidya}} 'knowledge' and {{lang|sa|sagar}} 'ocean').}}

:Use appropriate language markup per [[MOS:FOREIGN]]; use single quotes for glosses ([[MOS:SINGLE]]); don't use "scare quotes" around honorifics; don't add unnecessary commas; don't over-capitalize misc. words. I've adjusted the text in the article. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 01:24, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

== Difficult-to-implement guidance in MOS:FOREIGNITALIC ==

[[MOS:FOREIGNITALIC]] says "Rule of thumb: do not italicize words that appear unitalicized in multiple major English dictionaries."

I'm in a debate over whether "en route" should be italicized, but in three of the first four definitions listed in Google ([https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/en%20route Merriam-Webster], [https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/en-route Cambridge], [https://www.dictionary.com/browse/en-route Dictionary.com], and [https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/en-route Collins]), the text examples are in all italics.

By a literal reading of the rule, "en route" appears in italics in those three dictionaries since *all* of the words in the text examples are in italics, but I don't think that's the intent. :-)

Given that it says "loanwords or phrases that have been assimilated into and have common use in English" earlier in the section, what do people think about shortening the rule of thumb to just say "do not italicize words that appear {{strikethrough|unitalicized}} in multiple major English dictionaries"? If a word appears in multiple major English dictionaries, I think by definition that means it meets the standard of "hav(ing) common use in English".

Thoughts?

[[User:Stephen Hui|Stephen Hui]] ([[User talk:Stephen Hui|talk]]) 02:51, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

:My ''Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary'' (1974) lists ''en route'' on page 379; italicized here because [[WP:WORDSASWORDS]]. I suspect that your [https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/en%20route Merriam-Webster] example also italicizes the term for similar reasons. Because ''en route'' appears in multiple English language dictionaries, I think that it should not be italicized except when used in a WP:WORDSASWORDS situation.

:

:And I agree: {{strikethrough|unitalicized}}

:—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) <s>16:16, 1 December 2022 (UTC)</s> 16:18, 1 December 2022 (UTC) {{small|(clicked the wrong button...)}}

:@[[User:Stephen Hui|Stephen Hui]] I think you got it wrong. One would expect dictionaries, unless certain thematic ones, to have most words that exist in English. Most people would think that if a word is not in the dictionary it either doesn't exist or its use is not correct. <span style="border-radius:8em;padding:0 7px;background:orange">[[User:Thinker78|<span style="color:white">'''Thinker78'''</span>]]</span> [[User talk:Thinker78|(talk)]] 03:47, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

:I compared <em>[https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/en%20route en route]</em> with <em>[https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/airplane airplane]</em> in Merriam Webster's dictionary. Both are in italics. This tells me we should consider removing the rule of thumb altogether from the guideline. <span style="border-radius:8em;padding:0 7px;background:orange">[[User:Thinker78|<span style="color:white">'''Thinker78'''</span>]]</span> [[User talk:Thinker78|(talk)]] 20:52, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

::{{reply to|Trappist the monk|Thinker78}} Only the three of us have chimed in on this, but all three of us think we should at least consider changing this guideline from "do not italicize words that appear unitalicized in multiple major English dictionaries" to "do not italicize words that appear in multiple major English dictionaries" (i.e. that "italicized" should be removed).

::This is the first MOS discussion I've ever been part of -- does three people constitute enough of a quorum to make the change? [[User:Stephen Hui|Stephen Hui]] ([[User talk:Stephen Hui|talk]]) 21:19, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

:::Not a [[WP:VOTE]]; the quality of an argument is what matters, not the quantity of people making it. <code style="background:#DFF;white-space:pre">[[User:Fred Gandt|Fred Gandt]] · [[User talk:Fred Gandt|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Fred Gandt|contribs]]</code> 00:52, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

:::@[[User:Stephen Hui|Stephen Hui]] I did not say what to change it to, I only think maybe we should remove "do not italicize words that appear unitalicized in multiple major English dictionaries". For how decisions are made in Wikipedia, you can read [[WP:CONSENSUS]]. <span style="border-radius:8em;padding:0 7px;background:orange">[[User:Thinker78|<span style="color:white">'''Thinker78'''</span>]]</span> [[User talk:Thinker78|(talk)]] 02:56, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

:I removed the rule of thumb as outdated but I forgot to mention this discussion in the edit summary. <span style="border-radius:8em;padding:0 7px;background:orange">[[User:Thinker78|<span style="color:white">'''Thinker78'''</span>]]</span> [[User talk:Thinker78|(talk)]] 19:11, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

::It's noted now with [[Special:Diff/1127982080/1128056635|this]] [[WP:DUMMY]] edit. <code style="background:#DFF;white-space:pre">[[User:Fred Gandt|Fred Gandt]] · [[User talk:Fred Gandt|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Fred Gandt|contribs]]</code> 04:14, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

I do not think the "appears in xyz dictionaries" rule is a very good baseline. Dictionary writers (I have known some) see their job as helping readers by explaining what words mean; they are not trying to regulate the playing of wordgames, for example. Therefore there are many words in a big English dictionary which are not really in common/ordinary use in English at all. For example, ''romaji'' (ローマ字 / rōmaji) is the Japanese word for "Roman letters", and it appears in some dictionaries, because in specialist contexts it will appear in English texts. But this does actually recommend it at all, since it says nothing that "Roman letters" does not. This is indirectly linked to the italics problem, because the argument always proceeds that "if it's in a dictionary, it must be an English word." Anyway, I look at Chicago (the style guide, 13th ed.) and it is succinct: "Isolated words and phrases in a foreign language may be set in italics if they are likely to be unfamiliar to readers." Of course implementing this requires reason, so it is harder than mindlessly scraping pages, but there you go... [[User:Imaginatorium|Imaginatorium]] ([[User talk:Imaginatorium|talk]]) 07:01, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

:Yes, that seems sensible and I would endorse that approach. Though I can foresee arguments about familiarity. --[[User:John Maynard Friedman|𝕁𝕄𝔽]] ([[User talk:John Maynard Friedman|talk]]) 19:33, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Surely what is important is not the markup but the clue we are giving to a screen reader on how to pronounce it. So if it is to be pronounced in our best school French, we should write <nowiki>{{lang|fr|en route}}</nowiki>. If it is in common use (e.g., would Americans routinely say "on rout") then it should it really be tagged in any way? --[[User:John Maynard Friedman|𝕁𝕄𝔽]] ([[User talk:John Maynard Friedman|talk]]) 19:31, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

:Should "on rout" be tagged (for the pruposes of this discussion, should use italics)? Per [[MOS:FOREIGN]], "Loanwords and borrowed phrases that have common usage in English – Gestapo, samurai, vice versa – do not require italics."

:I see that [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style&diff=prev&oldid=1135453466 you objected] to the removal of the rule of thumb at [[MOS:FOREIGN]], even though I was just mirroring the action taken in this page. This thread is about the guidance to use italics if a dictionary does. We tried to determine if the wording "Rule of thumb: do not italicize words that appear unitalicized in multiple [[Wikipedia:WikiProject English Language#Free online dictionaries|major English dictionaries]]" was of any use. The discussion seemed to find that it was not. If you think otherwise, you can check whether such guidance provides any usefulness to your question about whether on rout should use italics. <span style="border-radius:8em;padding:0 7px;background:orange">[[User:Thinker78|<span style="color:white">'''Thinker78'''</span>]]</span> [[User talk:Thinker78|(talk)]] 21:43, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

::''This reply originally posted at [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Revert]], reposted here to avoid a fork.:''

::But the discussion did not reach a consensus, it just petered out. If you believe it concluded as you say, then you should have asserted that view at the end of the discussion rather than just go ahead as if had been resolved to your satisfaction.

::As I remarked already, there are two reasons for italics and they are getting muddled here. One is purely visual, which is fine for sighted readers. The other is to identify (a) a non-English word and (b) indicate which language it is, so that screen readers used by visitors with impaired vision may interpret it. Per [[MOS:ACCESS]], we must not deliberately or carelessly disable those visitors.

::Pinging {{ping|SMcCandlish}} for comment, as they know more about this issue than I do. I could be overstating it. --[[User:John Maynard Friedman|𝕁𝕄𝔽]] ([[User talk:John Maynard Friedman|talk]]) 19:24, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

:::I see what I did wrong. OP was proposing to modify the rule of thumb and I removed it. I concede you had a valid revert.

:::Regarding the ongoing issue, the purpose of this discussion is about the usefulness of current guidance that states, "A rule of thumb is to not italicize words that appear unitalicized in major general-purpose English-language dictionaries."

:::So the questions at hand are, "what do people think about shortening the rule of thumb to just say "do not italicize words that appear in multiple major English dictionaries"?

:::Is the current rule of thumb helpful or not for its purpose of providing guidance on when to use italics? Should it be removed or modified as per OP? <span style="border-radius:8em;padding:0 7px;background:orange">[[User:Thinker78|<span style="color:white">'''Thinker78'''</span>]]</span> [[User talk:Thinker78|(talk)]] 20:46, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

:In order to pronounce English correctly, screenreaders are going to need to rely on pronunciations from internal dictionaries, because English is not consistently phonetic enough for them to merely guess from the spelling. Given that this discussion is purely over words that can be found in dictionaries, I am skeptical that marking dictionary words as foreign is going to help these screenreaders. In fact, I could imagine scenarios where such a marking could hurt, when a word that has a standard English pronunciation is pronounced differently in the other language, or when that other language is non-phonetic and the screenreader has to guess how to pronounce it despite (if it were left marked as English) having a dictionary entry with its pronunciation. In the specific example that sparked this discussion, "en route", for instance, I would pronounce this differently if I were speaking French (with a nasalized first vowel, French r and an enunciated t) than in English (with an en consonant, American r and glottal-stop-elided t), and I would hope for a good screenreader to do the same. So I think that the issue of accessibility for screenreaders for words appearing in English dictionary is likely a red herring. But I have no actual experience with this matter so I would welcome input from those who do. —[[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]] ([[User talk:David Eppstein|talk]]) 19:25, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

::Yes, this particular sort of italicization has nothing to do with screen readers, and is a standard English-writing practice that pre-dates screen readers by at least a century. I have no objection to the proposed shortening of the rule of thumb to remove "unitalicized". When something is genuinely non-English (i.e. is not a frequent and familiar loan-word in English found in almost all mainstream English dictionaries), then using {{tlx|lang|{{var|xx}}}} markup will both provide language information for screen readers and italicize it appropriately. What I don't want to see happen is for people to get into editwars over whether they can italicize ''en route'' in a sentence on Wikipedia. If someone thinks it's better italicized, don't start shit with them about it. We have bigger fish to fry, and italicizing it isn't an error, just a [[MOS:STYLEVAR]] preference. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 23:31, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

:::Thank you all. I knew there is an issue but not really its extent. So my note was a hazard warning rather than a stop sign.

:::Just to clarify, I chose "en route" not as something to edit war over, but rather because it is a good example of a foreign language phrase that has entered common parlance ({{smiley}}) in English and American. Every rule should be tested against some edge conditions (but hard cases make bad law).

:::Thinker78's reformulation of the question is what I had expected. Do we have a consensus answer now? --[[User:John Maynard Friedman|𝕁𝕄𝔽]] ([[User talk:John Maynard Friedman|talk]]) 01:03, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

::::I do agree with the proposal of OP ([[User:Stephen Hui]]) that the rule of thumb should just say "do not italicize words that appear in multiple major English dictionaries". <span style="border-radius:8em;padding:0 7px;background:orange">[[User:Thinker78|<span style="color:white">'''Thinker78'''</span>]]</span> [[User talk:Thinker78|(talk)]] 21:25, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

::::{{Implemented}}. Regards, <span style="border-radius:8em;padding:0 7px;background:orange">[[User:Thinker78|<span style="color:white">'''Thinker78'''</span>]]</span> [[User talk:Thinker78|(talk)]] 22:59, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

== Conflicting styles ==

Hi, I posted this at [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Titles of works#Conflicting styles]] a week ago, but, there doesn't seem to be much activity at that talk page. So, I'm bringing it over here in the hopes of getting some clarification.

At [[MOS:TITLE]], under [[MOS:ITALICTITLE]], laws are not in the list of works that should have their titles italicized. This was clarified at [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Titles of works/Archive 3#Italics for legislation]]. However, at [[MOS:CANLAW]], it's stated, "in Canada, per the McGill Guide, titles of acts are italicized". Which of these opposing instructions governs? <span style="border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%">[[User talk:Miesianiacal|<span style="background-color:black;color:white">'''₪'''</span>]] [[User:Miesianiacal|<span style="color:black">MIESIANIACAL</span>]]</span> 00:19, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

:That part of CANLAW should be removed to bring it in line with global style. Judging by that paragraph’s example of [[Residential Tenancies Act (Ontario)]]—which was moved in 2013—the text hasn’t been reviewed in a while. <span style="font-family:Avenir, sans-serif">—&nbsp;<span style="border-radius:5px;padding:.1em .4em;background:#faeded">[[User:HTGS|HTGS]]</span>&nbsp;([[User talk:HTGS|talk]])</span> 08:58, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

::The relevant section of [[MOS:CANLAW]] was added [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AManual_of_Style%2FCanada-related_articles&diff=prev&oldid=880649782&diffmode=source in 2019] by {{U| Alaney2k}} without discussion, although no doubt in good faith. I have now removed it. <span style="font-family:Avenir, sans-serif">—&nbsp;<span style="border-radius:5px;padding:.1em .4em;background:#faeded">[[User:HTGS|HTGS]]</span>&nbsp;([[User talk:HTGS|talk]])</span> 02:22, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

:::I'd say perhaps a discussion is in order before removing this; a [[WP:LOCALCONSENSUS]] exception should probably apply here. See for example how these secondary sources use italics for the ''[[Ontario Heritage Act]]'' [https://www.woodbull.ca/practice-areas/details/heritage-matters] [https://cassels.com/insights/ontario-heritage-act-amendments-now-in-force/] or the [[Reform Act (Canada)|''Reform Act]] [https://www.samaracanada.com/research/political-leadership/the-reform-act] [http://www.revparlcan.ca/en/assessing-the-reform-act-as-a-tool-of-parliamentary-reform-one-step-forward-one-step-back/] [[User:162 etc.|162 etc.]] ([[User talk:162 etc.|talk]]) 04:41, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

::::Local preference would give us a lot more capitalised Acts and Bills (as common nouns). I agree that we need discussion, and it will have to get much deeper to address this. I welcome the opportunity to develop the MOS properly on this, because [[MOS:LAW]] feels very bare bones at this point.

::::For contrast, CBC [https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/kitchener-waterloo/bill-23-heritage-properties-impact-cambridge-1.6728343 prefers unitalicised]. It is generally my view that we are not writing for courts or lawyers, and I generally prefer a global style where reasonable. <span style="font-family:Avenir, sans-serif">—&nbsp;<span style="border-radius:5px;padding:.1em .4em;background:#faeded">[[User:HTGS|HTGS]]</span>&nbsp;([[User talk:HTGS|talk]])</span> 07:05, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

: I added the sentence because most laws and judgments in Canada, were mentioned with italics in Wikipedia articles, some not. So this was noting the common usage. I was basically wanting to provide a basis in the CANLAW for the convention. It is the convention here in Canada, not just for legal documents or dissertations or such to italicize law titles. That said, news organizations do vary in their usage. I am sure I could provide examples using the CBC website that do use italics. It really is no different from using Canadian English. For example, Toronto Harbour, instead of Toronto Harbor. An editor wanted to change the name to conform to international spelling. I think if you took a consensus of Canadian editors, we do want to preserve our Canadian style usage. I don't think Wikipedia should override the local usage. However, italics usage might be falling out of favour, I'll give you that as speed to post on the net seems to take on more and more precedence over everything else. Since 2019, I've not had any complaints over the usage of italics. I think it is accepted as common practice in Canada. Other things we do in Canada include using the province in a reference to a city. For example, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. But articles that are international use simply Toronto, Canada. [[User:Alaney2k|Alaney2k]] ([[User talk:Alaney2k|talk]]) 14:55, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

:And, elsewhere on [[WP:CANLAW]], the McGill Guide is referenced. So there was precedence. I did not set policy, only added a sentence to MOS:CANLAW reflecting the project. [[User:Alaney2k|Alaney2k]] ([[User talk:Alaney2k|talk]]) 15:04, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

::Fair. But, there are all sorts of style guides outside of Wikipedia that don't conform with Wikikpedia's; I'm almost constantly getting corrected here for using a style I leaned elsewhere, but is against Wikipedia's MoS. This all came out of one of those "correcting" moments; it prompted me to look up the guideline in MoS and that's how I discovered a contradiction with CANLAW.

::I don't particularly care about whether the names of laws are italicized or not. But, I do lean slightly toward not, since, italicizing them can get confusing when they're in among descriptions of terminology, such as the fifth paragraph of [[Leader of the Official Opposition (Canada)]]. If the law names were italicized, the paragraph would appear as:

:: "The term ''leader of the opposition'' is used in the ''Parliament of Canada Act'' and the ''Standing Orders of the House of Commons'', as is the term ''official opposition''. The terms ''leader of the loyal opposition'', ''his majesty's opposition'', and ''loyal opposition'' are sometimes used, but, are not in either the act or the ''Standing Orders''."

::Half the paragraph is in italics and it's getting difficult to discern a phrase from a title from an act of parliament. --<span style="border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%">[[User talk:Miesianiacal|<span style="background-color:black;color:white">'''₪'''</span>]] [[User:Miesianiacal|<span style="color:black">MIESIANIACAL</span>]]</span> 07:03, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

I've moved this discussion to [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Conflicting styles for names of laws]] in an attempt to get more eyes on it. --<span style="border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%">[[User talk:Miesianiacal|<span style="background-color:black;color:white">'''₪'''</span>]] [[User:Miesianiacal|<span style="color:black">MIESIANIACAL</span>]]</span> 03:41, 31 March 2023 (UTC)