Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive (visual design)

message: This manual, under words as words, says that when one writes about a word rather than using the word to write about what it refers to, it should be italicized.  That convention is often followed in publishing.  Thus:
* Bishop is derived from a Greek word.
(with italics), and
* John Smith is the Bishop of Wherever.
(without italics).
Usually it's better to begin an article by writing about the thing rather than the word, thus:
* A dog is an animal that barks.
but sometimes one should write about the word, especially if there's a need to clarify divergent meanings, or clear up confusion about the word, or to say that the word is offensive, etc., thus:
* Dog is a term that, when used by omphalogic veterinarians, does not mean the same thing as when used by lay persons.
Thus sometimes it is appropriate that the first appearance of the title word, which should of course be bolded, is also an instance of writing about the word rather than about the thing the word refers to, so that it should be italicized.  For example, in Oriental Orthodoxy, it once said something to this general effect:
* Oriental Orthodoxy is a confusing term, because oriental means eastern, but Oriental Orthodoxy differs from Eastern Orthodoxy.
So I deleted the statement that one should use bold italics only for terms that are always italicized.  It contradicts the "words as words" section. Michael Hardy 00:33, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the sentence you deleted applied only to the convention of bolding the title in the first sentence--I think the point was that in that specific context you should only use bold italic if the word or phrase would normally be italicized, such as the titles of books, or names of songs. I think the direction is appropriate. older≠wiser 01:09, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: And now I've altered the sentence so that it says what you thought it meant.  Now it does not contradict the advice given in the later section.  And now it makes sense. Michael Hardy 00:58, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: What a clever trick! I've changed it back to what it was. Your special case is not a justification - David Gerard 18:28, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: This manual gave contradictory advice about italics

message: In many Wikipedia pages there are Automated [Table of Contents]. But I can't see, from an editing view of the page, how this is done. Can we please have some instructions somehwere on how to put an Automated Table of Contents into a page. Thanks. RB-Ex-MrPolo 09:54, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Automated Table of Contents

message: Is this where I file a protest about Wikipedia's style of italicizing words referenced within a text. I realize that single quotes are used in marking up Wikipedia, but my keyboard knows as well as my computer does that a double quote is a separate thing entirely. And it is standard in written English to use double quotes around particular words that are being reference in a text. Itals are generally reserved for titles and foreign words and the like. The ital practice is somewhat jarring. Most standard guide to English style prefers the latter of these two:
The word panorama derives from the word panning.<BR>
The word "panorama" derives from the word "panning."
Is there a technical reason for this standard?  jengod 21:13, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Style for words as words 

message: For picture alignment in article, Docu said that for pictures where the person is facing right, they should be left aligned. I totally disagree. To me, regardless of which way the person is facing, the picture should be right aligned. So let me make a proposal - that we horizontally invert pictures where the person is facing the to the right (so that they are now facing left) and we put them on the right side of the article. Does that sound good? →Raul654 09:17, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC)
:I'd prefer if the photos are not edited too much. Next thing, some may want to change the background to match one of the stylesheets. Maybe we should simply drop the part on alignment. -- User:Docu
::I'd prefer dropping the part on alignment. It makes more sense for a picture at the very top of the article to be on the right--has to do with people reading from left to right--but I don't feel that it's something we need to mandate.  Certainly don't want to mandate its position by its content.  I understand that the human eye is drawn subconsiously in the direction of a person or animal's gaze, but I wouldn't want to have to put all the right-facing dog breed tables on the left side of the articles while the others are on the right.  And I really don't like the idea of flipping photos; this distorts reality in some way that we might not even be able to anticipate (e.g., someone doing a study of how often photos are taken of people facing the right rather than the left--I dunno--)  Elf | Talk 16:01, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't agree with a policy of always right-aligning pictures.  The option to use a variety of alignment of images is used effectively in many articles.  Sometimes I've used borders to get a pleasing text wrap. - Bevo 18:22, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think I said that I agree with requiring left-facing photos to be right aligned. I said I understood why that's appealing. I *did* say that I don't think we should mandate the alignment of images based on their content. If a particular project wants to mandate that a certain thing always goes right/left at the top of the article (again, like dog projects have the dog breed table on the right), that's fine, but otherwise I disagree with mandating any alignment.  Elf | Talk 19:09, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Picture Alignment

message: O.K., a bit off topic, but you three seem to know your stuff: Where is it most clearly spelled out in these pages when to italicize and when to use quotes? Most articles bounce back and forth between the two, and the M.O.S. isn't too "specific"/specific on the subject. My impression was that italics are to be used here in many situations where one would elsewhere use quotes. Thanks.Sfahey 04:17, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: That doesn't have its own section. You need to look up the item in question, such as "book titles". Maurreen 18:41, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I found that info. How 'bout to show you mean a word ironically, as in: "It took you only four hours to get across the Triboro Bridge?" Sfahey 23:26, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think we have a style on that, so use whatever you like. Maurreen 04:21, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Italics or quotation marks