Talk:Kannon Shanmugam

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:06, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Kannon K Shanmugam.jpg

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:07, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Kannon Shanmugam.jpg

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:52, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Kannon Shanmugam.jpg

Italics
Per MOS:FOREIGNITALIC, "Loanwords or phrases that have been assimilated into and have common use in English, such as praetor, Gestapo, samurai, esprit de corps, e.g., i.e., etc., do not require italicization. ... If looking for a good rule of thumb, do not italicize words that appear in Merriam-Webster Online." These phrases (summa cum laude, magna cum laude) appear in Webster's and were assimilated into English centuries ago. Chris the speller  yack  04:32, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Centuries ago? Their use has only been common here since Harvard started using them in the late 19th century, and they're still uncommon outside of the United States, at least as used in this article. In any case, they're not nearly common enough to be "de-italicized".  White Whirlwind   04:39, 30 September 2020 (UTC)


 * They are in the dictionary. Also see macmillandictionary.com and collinsdictionary.com, which do not use italics. Chris the speller   yack  05:04, 30 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Whether or not a word is in a dictionary is not relevant to whether it is italicized in English. The question is whether or it is so familiar to the average English reader that it won't be perceived as foreign. The "cum laude" honorifics do not meet that criteria.  White Whirlwind   06:40, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * For the second time, the MOS says "do not italicize words that appear in Merriam-Webster Online." You may fee free to italicize anything all you want, but not in Wikipedia articles. This is not your website. That is the opinion of other editors, established by consensus. You may go with the flow or go elsewhere. Chris the speller   yack  13:39, 30 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I'll ignore the aspersions cast against my editing attitude and focus on substance. Like many rules and laws, it's important to read the MOS's provisions as entire sentences, not individual clauses and snippets. You quoted only part of the MOS provision in question, and did so in a way that misleadingly makes it sound stronger than it really is. The full sentence actually reads: "If looking for a good rule of thumb, do not italicize words that appear in Merriam-Webster Online." The "rule of thumb" part is an important qualifying clause. A "rule of thumb" is, by definition, a rule that is a rough approximation and not precise or entirely accurate. I would've thought that would be obvious to most editors. Your misleading quotation produces bizarre results: for example, MW has an entry for "nunc pro tunc" (it doesn't appear to be italicized in the title, either, though that qualifier isn't included in the MOS rule, just your earlier comment). By your reading of the MOS rule, "nunc pro tunc" would not be italicized across all of Wikipedia, which is a preposterous result, since it is usually italicized even in the specialized setting (court orders) in which it's used. Your reading cannot be correct.    White Whirlwind   17:16, 30 September 2020 (UTC)


 * It would be better to seek the spirit of the guideline than to try to turn one part of a sentence against another part. The essay on Wikilawyering warns against "Abiding by the letter of a policy or guideline while violating its spirit or underlying principles". Your comparison of "cum laude" to "nunc pro tunc" is not helpful; the former is shown in at least three good dictionaries, and two show examples of usage without italics (while MW does not enlighten, as it uses italics for all items in examples) and is used predominantly outside of legal documents, while the latter appears only in MW and is used predominantly within legal documents. The spirit of the guideline is plainly to use italics for words and phrases taken from foreign languages that have not been assimilated into the English language. I bet many 11th-grade students in the US have a decent idea what "cum laude" means when they read about a person graduating from college. Wikipedia guidelines generally tell us to avoid unnecessary capitalization, italicization, peacock words and boldface type so that its articles look encyclopedic, not like company brochures or resumes/CVs. For me, the "cum laude" case does not seem like a close call. Chris the speller   yack  03:16, 1 October 2020 (UTC)


 * A 2 Corinthians 3 or Romans 7 "spirit/letter" reference is a Bible reference, and so has about as much authority here on Wikipedia as WP:Wikilawyering or any other WP:Essay, which is zero. This debate is not going very logically. You quoted a specific provision of the MOS italicization policy urging a literal interpretation of it. When I showed that it was only a small part of a greater whole that was not as authoritative as you made it sound, you pivoted to a "spirit" argument that's not supported by any relevant policy here on Wikipedia. And I don't know why a survey of a few online dictionaries should be conclusive of anything, because MOS:FOREIGNITALIC makes no mention of dictionaries except for the aforementioned "rule of thumb" reference—which by the way I think is poorly conceived, but that's a different topic. The ultimate question is whether cum laude and its variants are "phrases in other languages [or] isolated foreign words that do not yet have everyday use in non-specialized English." An online dictionary is just one fairly small piece of evidence going toward that ultimate question. I argue (I think persuasively) that they only have everyday use in specialized English, namely in certain university degrees in the United States and some other non-English-speaking countries.


 * In any case, why are we having this discussion here? This is a major change that (based on your use of AWB) you were making across a broad swath of articles—maybe all of the English Wikipedia, for all I know. Such a significant change would be better discussed at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style.  White Whirlwind   17:25, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You suggested the change;I made it. Chris the speller   yack  19:49, 1 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I decided to move the discussion to a better place: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Text formatting. Chris the speller   yack  20:06, 1 October 2020 (UTC)