Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Text formatting/Archive 8

< Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style | Text formatting
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) at 03:33, 3 August 2022 (Archiving 1 discussion(s) from Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Text formatting) (bot). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Latest comment: 3 years ago by Mitch Ames in topic RFC: Formatting of the words "bold" and "italics" in article text
Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9

RFC: Formatting of the words "bold" and "italics" in article text

Latest comment: 3 years ago39 comments11 people in discussion

Should the words "bold" and "italics" be formatted in bold/italics in article text that describes the usage of that formatting in a table. E.g. (from [1]) which is correct?

  1. (Races in bold indicate pole position) (Races in italics indicate fastest lap)
  2. (Races in bold indicate pole position) (Races in italics indicate fastest lap)

Note that this RFC question is about the formatting of the words "bold" and "italics" themselves in the legend, not the use of bold or italics in the table to denote (for example) pole position, fastest lap.

For previous discussions, see User talk:Mitch Ames § Removal of "unnecessary self-referential text formatting" and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Text formatting § Use of bold and italics in the legend for a table. Mitch Ames (talk) 08:58, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Added later for clarity...
Just for clarity - this RfC is about whether the formatting in several articles (in particular, motorsport articles, eg my change, reversion) should be changed. It is not a proposal to change MOS itself. However, if someone wants to raise an RfC to change MOS itself, feel free. (If that were to happen, I presume it would make sense to suspend this RfC, because it is based on MOS as it currently stands, but I'm not sure what the exact process is.) Mitch Ames (talk) 06:27, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

  • Not formatted, because such formatting is contrary to MOS, which explicitly disallows it (with my italics here for emphasis):
    • MOS:BOLD - "Boldface ... is considered appropriate only for certain usages" (implicitly those listed in that section)
    • MOS:BOLD#OTHER - "Use boldface in the remainder of the article only in a few special cases" (which are listed)
    • MOS:ITALIC "Italics, ... are used for various specific purposes in Wikipedia, outlined below"
    MOS explicitly says to use bold/italics formatting only in the ways described in MOS, thus excluding usage in other ways. MOS does not say "use bold/italic formatting to show the reader what those words means", thus it is disallowed.
    Mitch Ames (talk) 09:23, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
    @Mitch Ames: isn't the point of this RfC to change the MOS if needed? ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 10:30, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
    No, the RFC is to decide whether we should apply the MOS as it currently stands to the motorsport articles that were disputed. That being said, if anyone wants to raise an RFC to change MOS, feel free. Mitch Ames (talk) 05:06, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
    I mean, the answer to that is pretty obvious, as you have already explained. I don't see why we'd need an RfC for that. Given other people's responses I think they also interpreted this as an RfC to change the MOS. Why not just turn it into one? ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 14:04, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
    See "Comment on scope" below. Mitch Ames (talk) 02:24, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
    I have added a paragraph to clarify the scope. Mitch Ames (talk) 06:30, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Formatted as it happens with the use of colours in the same key, keeping the example #1 (which has been used for years on thousands of articles) it will help for a clear and quick understanding of the table. Refusing the use just because a general guidelines might not support (when writing that guideline, this particular use might not be think of) is a poor argument. Nothing is static and continuous improvement is needed.Rpo.castro (talk) 10:31, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
    as it happens with the use of colours in the same key — As I mentioned previously, the use of colour has its own guideline, MOS:COLOR, which does allow the use of colour in tables, whereas MOS:BOLD and MOS:ITALIC advise against formatting in those scenarios. Thus it is not a valid argument to say that because we use colour (in accordance with MOS) therefore we can use bold/italic (contrary to MOS).
    it will help for a clear and quick understanding of the table — Are the words "bold" and "italics" not clear? Do we think that the readers do not understand those word?
    Refusing the use just because a general guidelines might not support ... is a poor argument — I suggest that following the guidelines is the default position, that "follow the guidelines" is a good argument, given that MOS is "a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow", and that the onus is on the those not following the guideline to justify the exception. Mitch Ames (talk) 05:24, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Formatted as in Option 1, as it seems perfectly correct and useful. Whenever I come across some table in Wikipedia with some unexpected bolding or italicization (which happens quite often), I scan below and above the table for the legend (which is missing far too often, but I digress). What I'm scanning for is bold or italic (or asterisks, or colors, or whatever unique formatting the page's editors have employed). It helps if I can find something like "Bold indicates winner, italic indicates runner-up", in, say, the running text introducing the table or in a note afterwards. If we need to explicitly add these (to me, obvious) usage example to the MoS so that it's clear, then so be it. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 10:33, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
    Option 1, as it seems perfectly correct — I have pointed out exactly why it is not perfectly correct, quoting the relevant parts of MOS.
    ... I can scan below and above the table for the legend (which is missing far too often) — If the problem is that you can't find the legend, perhaps the solution is to add something to MOS:TABLES to the effect that tables should have a legend (possibly stating whether above or below). Ie fix the thing that is broken, rather than expecting exceptions to the MOS guidelines. Mitch Ames (talk) 05:34, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment: Personally I think this discussion should be a lot broader: can text style be used in an exemplary way? The article Emphasis (typography) does this all the time, not just with bold and italics but also with casing, spacing and color. Legends are just the most common place in which this is done. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 10:42, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
    The article Emphasis (typography) is about typography, not motorsports or race results, and is already self-referential. Because of the article's subject I would consider it a classic candidate for WP:IAR. The same cannot be said for articles about motorsports, tables of race results etc. Mitch Ames (talk) 02:30, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
  • (Summoned by bot) More interested in the why than the "what does MOS say". @Mitch Ames: the question is why would the MOS disallow that here? Sometimes there are good reasons for MOS specifics that aren't immediately obvious, and sometimes MOS dogmatism leads to unnecessary conflict. My inclination is to say let's not disallow it, but let's not be prescriptive, either. Figure it out on a case-by-case basis. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 12:58, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
    @Rhododendrites: I don't see how handling things on a case-by-case basis would be helpful? As far as I know the cases aren't that different from one another. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 00:00, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
    There are tons of exceptions to the details in the MOS. We don't need to codify them all. It looks like others may disagree with me on the subject of this detail, but I fail to see the urgency. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:09, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
    why would the MOS disallow that here — I can't find a specific answer to that. MOS exists - as does any style guide - to "maintain articles with ... consistent ... formatting". My understanding is that consistent formatting helps convey information that is not obvious from the text itself (e.g. the word "bold"), while not distracting the reader from the text. The reason for having MOS is to reduce the variations as individual editors have their own preferences, and to reduce debates over every individual variation/usage. In theory, we collectively agree to a common set of guidelines as a house style, to avoid debates such as this one. Mitch Ames (talk) 05:56, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
    @Mitch Ames: Responding more to the clarification added to the top than this comment here. The RfC question asks whether text should be formatted that way. I read that as either a modification of the MOS or otherwise something prescriptive. I would oppose something prescriptive. If the question is simply "should this be allowed" then I would support absent any compelling reason which isn't immediately obvious. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:38, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
    any compelling reason which isn't immediately obvious — I have quoted the relevant parts of MOS. The strength of words such as "should", "compelling" etc notwithstanding, I'm still waiting for someone to explain how one can follow the guideline and also use bold/italic formatting in a legend. Mitch Ames (talk) 03:08, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Formatted (option 1) per my previous comment. The MOS (guidelines, not rules) does not explicitly advise for or against this use, which has been the practice for years (which might, to a certain extent, imply WP:EDITCONSENSUS). The purpose of boldface/italics in this context, as with colours, is purely emphatic, and does not look messy or obstruct readability—on the contrary, it can help spot the legend and thus interpret the table more easily. Therefore, the use is appropriate and useful, and I see no reason to disallow it. MSport1005 (talk) 15:14, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
    The MOS (guidelines, not rules) does not explicitly advise for or against this use — MOS advises against it by use of the words "only" and "specific purposes ... outlined below" as quoted in my first bullet point above.
    The purpose of boldface/italics in this context, ... is purely emphatic — which is explicitly contrary to MOS:NOBOLD, which says "Avoid using boldface for emphasis". Mitch Ames (talk) 06:04, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
    Your first bullet point is blatantly erroneous because you keep getting "explicitly" mixed up with "implicitly". Also note that your quote is incomplete, and the full sentence states "Avoid using boldface for emphasis in article text" [in general]. As many people have mentioned, our holy MOS might need rewording to disambiguate sentences like this and specify what is and what is not advised in legends. MSport1005 (talk) 16:12, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
    I disagree that I used explicitly/implicitly incorrectly, but even if we swap or remove those words from my post, the advice given by MOS is unchanged.
    your quote is incomplete — Feel free to quote the part of MOS that says, directly or indirectly "you may use bold/italic to illustrate them meaning of those words" or similar.
    our holy MOS might need rewording — Fee free to propose such a change. (See "Comment on scope" below.) Mitch Ames (talk) 03:21, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Formatted. Makes it clearer, no real reason why it should not be used in my opinion. --Ita140188 (talk) 17:51, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Formatted per WP:COMMONSENSE because it's a natural convention that's more immediately accessible to readers, and because that's more important than preserving the sanctity of the existing wording of our holy MOS. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:09, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
    If it was common sense, this discussion wouldn't have existed in the first place. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 00:05, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 1/Formatted mostly per my comments in the above discussion. But to summarise, this is helpful and consistent with similar usage of colour, and the only objection so far seems to be that it is not permitted by the MOS. I don't know if it's necessary to change any wording of the MOS specifically, perhaps just changing the lists of permitted exceptions to say "including:..." to imply that there are others not explicitly listed. A7V2 (talk) 22:31, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
    perhaps just changing the lists of permitted exceptions to say "including:... — Independently of whether this particular usage of bold/italics is a good idea, just changing MOS to say "including" is not a good idea, because that effectively allows anything. (And then we would end up with many debates like this one where people disagree on whether a particular usage is good or bad. The point of MOS is to reduces such debates.) Mitch Ames (talk) 06:08, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Is this seriously even a question? Option 1 and let's just WP:SNOWPRO this thing already. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 03:29, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
    Yes, I asked a serious question, and my response includes quotes from, and links to, the specific relevant parts of the style guidelines. You (and others) are invited to give a serious response - with appropriate references to MOS or other relevant guidelines - addressing the specific points that I made. Mitch Ames (talk) 06:17, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
    one guy vs the world, really fighting every single person always with same words "Its carved on stone". Thankfully world evolves and rules evolve too.Rpo.castro (talk) 12:13, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment: Given that most people's argument seems to be that there's no argument for the contrary, I thought I'd give one. Unlike background color in a table, which is purely a stylistic choice, bold and italics actually have meaning in English text. Bold indicates importance or some form of heading; italic text indicates emphasis, names of major works, etc. Using bold or italics in article text in this way violates its semantic meaning. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 14:14, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
  • That has more to do with the use of bold and italics throughout the entire table, not merely in its legend, which as OP specifically stated is not at issue here. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 04:24, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
    Jochem van Hees's argument applies equally to the legend - in fact more so. For text within the table, the semantic meaning (of bold, italic formatting) normally defined by MOS is superseded by the semantic meaning defined by the legend. But for text within the legend itself, the semantic meaning is that defined by MOS, not by the legend. This is because the legend defines the meaning of the formatting in the table (eg, with my underlining here for emphasis, "Races in bold ..."), not the meaning of the formatting in the legend (eg "words in bold in this sentence illustrate the meaning of the word "'bold'"). Mitch Ames (talk) 12:40, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment on scope, in general response to several comments above about changing MOS. I created this RfC because previous (less "formal") discussions were unable to come to agreement about whether to apply bold/italic formatting to certain text in multiple motorsport articles. Originally the discussion was on my talk page, then A7V2 moved it to this page to get wider coverage. I raised the RfC for two reasons: to get wider coverage, and to get a definite outcome. I raised it on this page because the discussion was already here. In retrospect, this is probably the wrong place - the banner at the top says "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to [MOS]" not "this is the place to discuss interpretation or usage of MOS" - so I can see that there might be some confusion. (On the other hand, if we all did exactly what the MOS pages say, we would need to have this debate at all.  ) But where else would be sensible place to hold the discussion? The disagreement was on motorsport articles, but the matter for debate has nothing to do with motorsport per se, it's about formatting. So to reiterate - I'm not proposing a change to MOS, I'm asking whether the text on those articles should be formatted or not, e.g. should my edit here be reinstated?
I do not intend to propose a change to MOS, because I do not think it needs changing. It is clear and unambiguous, and (in my opinion) does not need have another specific usage defined. If someone else wants to propose a change to MOS - and some have suggested that MOS might need changing - they are free to do so, in a separate section or RfC. If someone did so, it would make sense to suspend this RfC because it is about interpretation and usage of the existing guideline (so would be meaningless if the guideline changed).
I know that, as has been pointed out, MOS is a guideline, not mandatory. My use of words like "allow / disallow", "should / should not" are intended to represent what I think the guidelines are telling us, ie what we "should attempt to follow"; I'm not implying "must". Also I know that those words are followed by "treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions", but I suggest that the onus is on those who choose not to follow the guideline to explain why. Mitch Ames (talk) 02:22, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Firstly, I don't see why there would be an issue discussing this matter here. On the notice at the top of Wikipedia:WikiProject Manual of Style it states "All maintenance and development and other discussion of MoS matters takes place at the talk pages of individual MoS guidelines." (emphasis mine). Secondly, I don't think it is necessary for a separate discussion on whether to change the MOS. As with any guideline, and as you have pointed out a few times, the MOS is supposed to give an indication of accepted (ie, consensus) practices. The notice at the top of MOS pages states "Any substantive edit to this page should reflect consensus" - if there is consensus that a particular practice in text formatting (as we are discussing, and as this page is dedicated to) which is currently not permitted within the MOS, then I see no reason it cannot be changed by a consensus here. There is no need to pile on further bureaucracy. That said, while it looks clear that there is consensus here to allow the formatting, there currently isn't (certainly it's not clear-cut) on whether the MOS needs updating. A7V2 (talk) 03:00, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Consensus here is, for me, as good as any to ratify a relevant change to the MOS. There's no real controversy here, more just WP:ASTONISHment that this isn't already explicitly allowed by the MOS because it hasn't hurt anything and has been practiced here for years. Whether people misunderstood the true scope of this discussion or not, it clearly hasn't hurt anything to do things this way over the years, there's no need to get rid of it where it is practiced, and people seem united on allowing it to continue — whether they think MOS needs to be changed to reflect that or not. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 04:24, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Formatted (option 1) agreeing with the comments of A7V2 . I'm not even sure if this discussion is about how to format a motor-racing table, or how to format the legend of the table. But either way it smacks of mountains/molehills and storms/teacups. This has been a long-standing convention in motor-racing articles and accepted by the fraternity of regular motor-racing page-editors. It is a clear and concise way to relay these important details in this sport, without resorting to additional character clutter in the table. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" Philby NZ (talk) 01:14, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Text_formatting/Archive_8&oldid=1102045391"