Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Text formatting

message: Some articles use bold mark-up on very minor sub-sub-section titles.
Such as, for example,
    Stringer pallet
and
    Carrier block
subsections in the current version of the Pallet article.
Other articles exclusively use the "==", "===", "====", "=====", etc. section mark-up for every section and sub-section, no matter how minor.
I expected to find some advice to specifically recommend something like (a) "make the most minor sub-sections bold -- they are not important enough to appear in the table of contents"; (b) "always use section markup, so it appears in the table of contents, no matter how minor the section"; or (c) "either style is acceptable, so don't bother senseless switching back and forth (see MOS:RETAIN)".
Should MOS:SECTIONS or MOS:NOBOLD specifically recommend (a), (b), or (c)?
Is there some other place in the manual of style that already does recommend (a), (b), or (c)?
--DavidCary (talk) 18:01, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: You are looking for MOS:PSEUDOHEAD Gonnym (talk) 18:23, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  Gonnym, thank you. I see MOS:PSEUDOHEAD is exactly what I'm looking for. --DavidCary (talk) 07:12, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use bold for minor sub-sub-sections? 

message: On most of the food and drink pages italics are used improperly (I have spent many hours of my days correcting errors of this kind), for example: many times on a page a food is put in italics and on the same page many times it's not; on one page a food is made italics and on others the same food is not made italics; it almost always happens that when one enters a wikilink of a food put in italics, one is confronted with a page without that food in italics. I myself struggle to continue reading foods and drinks pages, I don't want to imagine in the mind of a reader how much bloody confusion is created. I would propose to have a bot act by removing all italicised food and drink terms, or, even better, selecting every existing food, deciding whether to make it italic or not, and, again through the bot, changing everything at the same time, without (which is impossible) doing it without bot. I, however, have done my best, but I will announce that I will never again spend time on this problem, as I am in an endless loop. I wonder what's the point of italicising a food If there is zero uniformity. JackkBrown (talk) 00:52, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It's unclear what sort of response to make to this without some specifics. What I would guess at from this vague report is that various food and drink items are rendered in italics per MOS:FOREIGN because they are not English-language terms. In such a case, the unitalicized instances should be italicized. If someone has been putting some instances of English-language terms in italics, like bread and mince pie, these should not be in italics. There are apt to be some judgement-call cases like enchilada and étouffée where the term originates in a foreign language but has currency in some particular English dialects; in those cases, consensus should be established at the article on the dish whether to consider it as English or as an italicized foreignism, and the usage of italics or not at other pages that mention it should follow the lead of the main article.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:32, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

text: For an example, see the list of Italian dishes which the OP has been working on.  The first entry is Acquacotta in which italics are reserved for variations rather than the primary dish.  That seems sensible as the primary dish name appears repeatedly and it would be wearisome for both readers and editors to have it italicised, especially if language templates were used for every occurrence.  Andrew🐉(talk) 10:17, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  so you're saying that "acquacotta" on the list of Italian dishes page shouldn't be written in italics? JackkBrown (talk) 12:04, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of italics in relation to food and drink 

message: Editorial input is sought at Talk:List_of_multiple_discoveries#Bold_format regarding the use of bold format in the article. Mitch Ames (talk) 00:56, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of multiple discoveries, Bold format 

message: Additional opinions are needed at Talk:Daria#Tracy Grandstaff regarding whether it is appropriate to place Grandstaff's name in boldface while Tracy Grandstaff is a redirect to Daria. Thank you for providing additional opinions. DonIago (talk) 05:54, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Appropriateness of bolding redirect 

message: In this edit at Adolf Hitler, I removed language markup that previously was coded thus:
: The baptismal register did not show the name of his father, and Alois initially bore his mother's surname, .
dropping the  template and retaining only the double quoted name. This seems self-evidently correct to me, because this occurs in running English text, and there's no reason for marking it up with a  template. Put another way, none of the criteria listed at Template:Lang#Rationale apply, and in particular, the screen reader item does not apply, as we don't want to switch pronunciation to German in the middle of an English sentence just to pronounce his birth name.  (If further argument were needed: plenty of native-born Germans have names of Russian (or Turkish) origin, so then what: we tag the name for German pronunciation? Or we tag it for Russian or Turkish, even though the person involved would pronounce it in the German fashion?) 
The tricky part, is how to word this parsimoniously in the text, without using as many words as I just did. Perhaps this addition to  would do:
Or maybe:
: 
Either of these would have covered the situation I changed wrt "Schicklgruber", and I would have liked to be able to link a MOS section in the edit summary to substantiate my edit. Mathglot (talk) 01:47, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Given that there are cases where someone's name may have a non-standard pronunciation even within the same language (e.g. Diane Arbus), relying on language tags to aid screen readers is already a problematic approach. I'm a big fan of pronouncing names correctly, but language tags are not the solution. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 03:10, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah, I had Shelley Fabares in mind (Ralph Fiennes is another) but I figured I had said enough already (but it works as a self-reply ;-) ). Mathglot (talk) 03:28, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

text: Oppose change that broad. If there's an unusual case like Ralph Fiennes, just don't use it in that case. And there is no need to use it for simple cases that a screen reader is not going to mangle (maybe that includes , I'm not sure). But for some languages, like Irish and Scottish Gaelic, no screen reader is going to do anything but completely mangle a name like  (Irish) or  (Scottish) that doesn't have the lang tag (not that every screen reader is going to be able to handle every language already, but the markup needs to be there for those that support the language, which is something that will grow over time).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:58, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed clarification about Foreign terms 

message: Hi, I've been told that I shouldn't bold titles however it's not stated in WP:MOS as far as I can see. On List of kingdoms in Africa throughout history, I would like to bold the headings referring to regions (like North Africa, East Africa) to make their superiority to the time periods (Ancient, Post-classical) clearer, particularly in the 'Contents' list.
Also I would like to bold 'List of kingdoms' to denote its importance relative to 'Comparison' and 'History periods', which just offer supplementary information.
Thank you in advance for any help Alexanderkowal (talk) 20:47, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess you missed MOS:NOBOLD? Listen to what people tell you, they are right! (In this case, maybe not in others.) Gawaon (talk) 07:47, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

text: Also MOS:FAKEHEADING. Gonnym (talk) 08:14, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: @Gonnym I might be blind but it doesn’t say don’t bold section headings as far as I can see Alexanderkowal (talk) 09:41, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Text formatting#Automatically applied boldface older ≠ wiser 09:47, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: @Bkonradmy bad thank you Alexanderkowal (talk) 09:50, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bolding titles