Template talk:Italic title/Archive 1

Js implementation
The title is only changed when JavaScript is enabled - why not just implement this template entirely in JavaScript? --- RockMFR 16:29, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * +1: No shit, eh? See also for a more efficient and customizable way to do this. — CharlotteWebb 15:07, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Why do things automatically at all? You're required to type out formatting explicitly in article text, so why not in the page title? SharkD (talk) 05:19, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You mean why make a default assumption about what part should be italicized? Well, probably because the existing strategy is most often to invoke it from within an infobox template which is usually shared by several articles generally following similar naming conventions. Having something like the "titleparts" function but which recognizes the significance of disambiguatory parentheses would be a big help too. — CharlotteWebb 21:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

italic and lowercase
I tried to use both and  on oskar, however  seems to override. A template for italics and lowercase together would be useful for gene names in some species. Celefin (talk) 13:41, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Try  Happy‑melon 15:10, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Interferes with "editing lead section only"?
I think that something in this template is interfering with the option to edit only the lead section, as the dinosaur pages where it has been implemented have lost the [edit] button for that section (see for sample Spinosaurus versus Dinosaurs). J. Spencer (talk) 03:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

There was some conversation on this at Village pump (technical)/Archive 61, and it turns out it's a script conflict. However, I just found out that if the italictitle element is placed not at the top of the page, but lower (say below the taxobox), it doesn't interfere and the edit button is present. See Pteranodon or Allosaurus. J. Spencer (talk) 02:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * italic title was recently updated so that it will not cause any more script conflicts, period. —Remember the dot (talk) 02:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Odd, seems not to have gotten through yet everywhere. Well, that's cache for you. J. Spencer (talk) 03:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Question/request
I haven't run into any examples yet, but I'm guessing that a title including "sp.", "var.", or "ab." most likely be formatted incorrectly. Has anyone run into this yet? If it is not already implemented, would someone with proper privileges modify the code to treat the situation appropriately? Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 22:50, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Getting this to work at Wikispecies
Wikispecies will certainly benefit from the usage of this template. However, I attempted to bring the template over but with not much luck. I have also asked around and the whole template still looks as confusing as when I started. Can anyone help? OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:29, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I've just copied/pasted several templates to WikiSpecies, but it doesn't look like it's helping. Added FormattingError, str index, and str sub. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 05:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * We're getting string functions soon so the templates won't be needed. Rocket000 (talk) 13:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

RFC: Should this be used?
None of the discussions linked above seem to show a strong consensus for using this template one way or the other, because they weren't really advertised enough. So, what is the community's view on this template? I'm going to put this on WP:CENT, and I'll spam the talk pages of WP:TOL, WP:VG, WP:BOOKS, and WP:FILMS, since this would most affect the articles in those projects. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 16:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I've also informed WP:ALBUMS. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 19:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks; my bad. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 19:07, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Mentioned it on WP:VPP and WP:MOST. SharkD (talk) 20:41, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * My feeling is that this template is a Bad Thing™, for a number of reasons. First, it makes an article's name appear different from its actual title. This is a minor issue, but is present. More importantly, the title isn't italicized when in edit mode, only when viewing or previewing an article. It adds an extra line of text to articles, or (if it is used in an infobox template or the like) it causes confusion because users can't find what's making the title italicized. To my knowledge, no print encyclopedia does this (although granted, it's been awhile since I really looked at a print encyclopedia). Very few websites have italicized titles... e.g., video game websites almost never have Neverwinter Nights 2: Mysteries of Westgate italicized in "Interview with designers of Neverwinter Nights 2: Mysteries of Westgate". And, to put it simply, I think that having the main title in italics just plain looks ugly (ditto for section headers, but to a slightly lesser extent). –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 16:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Technically, an article title is a URL which contains no formatting information, so it's not possible for it to "look" different, since a URL doesn't have a "look". It's up to the user agent to decide how the text is rendered. If a user agent wanted to display URLs in italics or bold text, there'd be nothing in the way to prevent them from doing so. SharkD (talk) 23:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Echo Drilnoth in that big, san serif faces are ugly to begin with, but italics just makes them look even worse. If people decide to implement it, I'd much rather see it used as a regular template rather than embedded into infoboxes because of the confusion that may be caused, as well as possible instances where infoboxes are not used. It also sets up a rather odd precedent—if we italicize books, games, and movie titles, shouldn't we add quotes around television episodes and short stories? It's selective formatting that adds nothing. -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 17:14, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I also believe the fact it tries to do things automatically will cause problems with titles like Pokemon Red and Blue. 陣 内 Jinnai 17:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Beyond the aesthetic issue, which I for one find /really ugly/, as I mentioned on WP:VG is that these aren't technically titles themselves, but the titles of the article -- within the encyclopedia. I dunno if others (print or online) do it or not, but I believe that's a consideration. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 18:08, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I this should only be done with article titles that are non-English words brought into the language in the manner of latin species names, or words/phrases like en masse or in situ. Using it for names of works (even if those names are foreign to start but are not used as proper nouns, say, Naruto) is going to be very difficult. --M ASEM (t) 18:15, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't that be inconsistent, though? Having some things italicized and some not when, within articles, both are? –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 18:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I strongly oppose this idea. It has no value at all, and is stylistically bad. As others not, this also is not done with any other print encyclopedia. Article titles are titles, and do not need italics, anymore than we italicize chapter titles in books. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 18:56, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Stylistically bad? Article titles are titles, but even in titles of scientific articles, the species is still italicized. This is common convention and is stylistically sound. Chapters are only italicized when we're speaking of them elsewhere apart from their context within a book. Species and genera are always italicized, within a title or not. --Rkitko (talk) 00:48, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No. Unnecessary. Yes, I checked the archives and still there's no compelling reason to italicize title. Taxa? What makes them stand out against the rest of human knowledge? NVO (talk) 20:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Taxa, by our own MoS and the codes that govern their nomenclature (ICBN and ICZN) require italicization of all taxa ranks of genus and below. To a taxonomist or academic in any field, it's jarring to see these titles not in italics. While one can be understanding of limitations of technology (e.g. old manuscripts that used hand-set type with one font), we're able to comply with our manual of style and convention on italicization of genera, subgenera, sections, species, etc.; why not use it? --Rkitko (talk) 00:48, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * An encyclopedia cannot heed all existing typographic conventions. Every branch of knowledge is free to invent its own standards, each wikiproject may promote them in project space. Main encyclopedia space must reject most of these local conventions simply to remain readable. If wikipedia (not wikispecies!) indeed must use fancy titles for taxa, than the fans of Pokemon are entitled to their own, in shades of pink and purple. Aren't they? If not, why? NVO (talk) 06:15, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This is not just a local typographic convention for taxa. All external manuals of style (Chicago, MLA, etc.) that I'm aware of advise on the use of italics for taxa. It's not comparable to your Pokemon example because external authorities have not recognized a color scheme for Pokemon names, nor is there a long-standing tradition of doing so. Not italicizing taxa names looks unprofessional, like we're making a mistake in the title, like we don't know what we're doing. The ICBN and the ICZN are not simple "local conventions"; they are the nomenclatural authorities for the taxonomic fields of botany and zoology, respectively. Their rules govern the way we name taxa. Not italicizing a scientific name is as incorrect as insisting on referring to Drosera stolonifera subsp. monticola as Drosera monticola, since according to the ICBN rules, "Drosera monticola" was published invalidly, it is still known as the subspecies until that error can be fixed in the literature. Italicization is important to these authorities; it is nomenclaturally incorrect to leave taxa names unitalicized; it is not, to my knowledge, nomenclaturally incorrect to not color Pokemon names in shades of pink and purple. --Rkitko (talk) 12:13, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Is it possible to have two different articles with the same name, but differing only in italicization - say, Opuntia on the genus and Opuntia (different!) on the actual plant? No. One title = one URL = one article. So no matter how the title looks, the URL line will still be in plain text. And no matter how the title looks, the name of the taxon in the lead should be italicized per MOS. Now, pray tell me why the plain text title looks offending, while plain url is not? Treat them alike, and the problem disappears. These are system headings; formatting belongs to article text, not the headings. NVO (talk) 18:03, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, this should become 100% Wikipedia policy and integrated into Wikipedia itself before it is used, rather than merely used as a template. For example, have a checkbox to put the page heading in italics when creating it, or change it to italics, like the "move" command. If that happens, I have no objections, but as it is, it seems unnecessary to update articles en masse.--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 20:11, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll be in the vocal majority here, but I like the idea, and feel it has potential. However ZXCVBNM has the right idea, this template is a poor execution and there are to many articles to work on at once. If the execution could be done better there you go.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The amount of work it would require would be the same regardless of whether it is implemented at the software or page level. Implementing it at the software level wouldn't remove the need for human intervention to make sure the titles are actually what they are supposed to be. SharkD (talk) 23:23, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * As I said in WP:VG, I support the use of italics in article titles. However, I don't think anyone should be doing it automatically. Either editors should have to input the desired rendering explicitly, or not have the option at all. Native support within MediaWiki software would be a big plus, because then authors could be prompted right away to enter the correctly formatted title when creating an article. As for arguments that encyclopedias in general "should" be this way, or "should" be that way, I'd ask these people to provide links to relevant style guides or real world examples. I know that Encarta for a fact does use italics in titles of articles about books, films, and so forth. SharkD (talk) 23:14, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Unequivocal support for italic titles (of species, genera, subgenera, etc., as that's the only horse I have in this race). --Rkitko (talk) 00:48, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Implementing it at the software level would be easier for novice editors and the like, not to mention easier to manage for multiple reasons: 1) The italics won't disappear when editing, 2) It would be less of a waste of article space, and 3) It would be harder to accidentally mess up. The software would have to have the same functionality as the template, so maybe a series of text boxes could be used for disambiguations, or that kind of thing.--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 01:49, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Italicizing article titles (as rendered, that is) is most certainly a good idea, however we choose to do it behind the scenes. There are no provisions in Manual of Style (titles) saying that formatting should only be used in the article body. I, for one, was taught that scientific names should always be emphasized, whether typewritten, typeset, or displayed on screen; I was even taught to underline them in handwriting. We even italicize scientific names in reference titles, and rightly so. Article titles should be no different—if it is technically possible for them to comply with our style guidelines, why shouldn't they? It's illogical. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 02:49, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Unequivocally support the use of italics for the names of species and genera. Just like the use of diacritics on foreign words - we do it because it's the correct way to write those words in English.  And being accurate matters when you're trying to write a compendium of all human knowledge.  Guettarda (talk) 14:23, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Support italic titles of genera, species, etc. In another unrelated discussion, someone once pointed out that this is not la.wikipedia; Latin is one of the few languages in which scientific names are not routinely italicized.--Curtis Clark (talk) 14:34, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Support italicisation of titles for species and genera. mgiganteus1 (talk) 15:32, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Strongly support the titles of genera, species, etc. being in italics. It looks unprofessional not to have them italicised and as we can do it we should. I'm not sure about other articles - I sway towards saying no as they are often not written in italics. Smartse (talk) 16:13, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Support- The italicization of genus and lower names is more then just a suggestion to be implemented when one feels like it; it is an internationally required rule which applies to all scientific names of all life forms. it is on the same level as capitalizing the first word of a sentence and putting the correct punctuation at the end.--Kevmin (talk) 17:30, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Using italics for books, games, albums, etc. also raises the issue of how chapters, songs, poems, etc. should be formatted. Normally these should be contained in quotes without italics. If the template were to allow custom input, then this should also be possible. SharkD (talk) 23:13, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Selective support —
 * This should not be used for titles in general (book titles, album titles, etc.). Titles are only italicized in prose to distinguish them from normal text, and are never italicized when used as titles.
 * However, this should absolutely be used for mathematical symbols that need to be in italics — e (mathematical constant) springs to mind. I have no opinion on taxonomy (species names and all that), but if it's true that this generally done in scientific publishing, I see no reason not to.
 * And I completely agree that this is a slippery slope that should be very carefully managed. I don't want to see fully formatted aphex twin songs as titles. But I think italics are a reasonable step to make that won't hurt anyone. —Werson (talk) 03:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * There is nothing in any MoS that says page titles aren't italicized (unless like currently at Wikipedia it can't support it) if they would be in prose. Also you have things like foreign words, which are also italisized, like miko, when its not common to use in English. This just opens a can of worms if we just allow one or 2 groups to italicize and not the rest. 陣 内 Jinnai 21:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Important comment: I have an open Request for Bot Approval at Bots/Requests for approval/Polbot 13 which would add italictitle to all genus and species articles. Obviously I won't run it unless it's clear there's consensus. But whatever the consensus is, it would be easy to run a bot to implement. – Quadell (talk) 14:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed that a bot can do things either way. I actually started this in part because I saw that BRFA... I've just kind of ignored this whole thing because it really wasn't on many articles, but I couldn't find a discussion which established firm consensus one way or the other and I thought that it would be important to discuss more fully before a bot changes a bunch of articles. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 19:04, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Reformat
Okay; there seem to be three current thoughts: Don't italicized names at all, only italicized genera/species names, but not others, and italicize all appropriate names. To help keep things organized, I'm going to break this into those three sections (plus an "other"). I think that it is fair to say that everyone can re-!vote... some of the comments above are unclear as to whether they are "species/genera only" or "all appropriate italicization". –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 17:34, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

No italicization

 * 1) Per my original comment. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 17:34, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Per Drilnoth, as well as inconsistent formatting of page titles. Half the encyclopedia would have an italics title, which would be quite confusing for new editors. As well, the difficulty in dealing with disambiguated terminology and the hackish way of changing the the title of the article would be detrimental. --Izno (talk) 22:31, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) As I said above. While I can understand the issue with scientific names, there's still the problem with the fact that it just looks /really bad/ and may induce confusion on various levels. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 01:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Unnecessary decoration. Stifle (talk) 11:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) Per Drilnoth and Stifle's comment above. Unnecessary decoration. Garion96 (talk) 12:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) I have not read the comments above (TLDR), but I see no reason why an article title, which is intended only to be a signpost, should be italicized. Even things that would be italicized in running text can be set in roman in titles. I don't see any potential for confusion unless there were two different articles whose titles differed only in italicization, which would be impossible with the current Mediawiki setup. Moreover, italics are always a matter of style, never a matter of "correctness". &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 17:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 7) As a precaution against uncontrolled proliferation of "me too", random italicization. Italicize in the lead and in text per MOS, the title (as said before me) is a signpost. Wikipedia is not an extension of ICZN and cannot heed all external style conventions. NVO (talk) 17:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 8) Species names and such is not my business. But for everything else... (what I said). -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 18:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 9) Encyclopedia page titles have no need for italicization, because they are already set-off from surrounding text.  This particular implementation also has significant problems because it can only italicize the entire title.  The Crucible (1957 film) could not be rendered as "The Crucible (1957 film)", and Lucy (Australopithecus) could not be rendered as "Lucy (Australopithecus)".  However, I would likely still oppose the proposal even without that technical limitation, for the reasons stated above.  Powers T 14:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Striking out The Crucible, as I re-read the template documentation and that would work. I substitute Sources of Hamlet ("Sources of Hamlet") as an alternative example of failure.  Powers T 14:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe that in cases where more flexibility is required, it is possible to use something like etc. to achieve the desired format. Celefin (talk) 17:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The quotes should be inside the parenthesis, but thanks for that approach. I had unsuccessfully tried tweaking the template in my sandbox to account for that case. —Ost (talk) 19:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose all italics. It is ugly, inconsistent, confusing, limited, and excessive. There is no need to have the burdon of dealing with italics; it's not broken. If at all, it should be for taxonomic names ONLY, and absolutely NOT for the hundreds of thousands of books, films, foreign phrases, etc. Reywas92 Talk  15:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose to all italics article titles. Shouldn't an encyclopedia try to be the most consistent and uniform possible? Locos ~ epraix Beaste~praix 19:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) It just doesn't look right. You can italicise if necessary in the first line, but page titles should all follow the same format, otherwise it gets messy. A lot of people see italics as just adding emphasis to something, which we don't want to be doing. Greg Tyler (t • c) 17:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:IDONTLIKEIT? I know this isn't a deletion discussion, but it fits. A lot of people who are used to seeing scientific names see the use of italics as the only proper way to display them. As I said below, this is not stylistic whimsy. The rules of scientific nomenclature compel us to italicize scientific names anywhere we're able to. We're able to italicize article titles, so why not do it? It doesn't look weird; it looks weird not to. --Rkitko (talk) 21:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * As I see it, it looks weird to you not to. I know and you know that italicisation would recognise a proper name rather than emphasis, but a lot of people wouldn't realise this. That said, I am (and was initially) tempted to stray to the middle group. People reading scientific articles may very well know the difference and recognise its worth. But I'm half-way between and slightly more this side at the moment purely because, indeed, I don't like it. It looks messy. And I feel that's a good enough reason in this discussion =P. Nyeh. I'll look through things again tomorrow and see if I feel like moving to middle ground. <b style="color:#00A">Greg Tyler</b> <sup style="color:#A00;font-weight:bold;font-size:10px;">(<b style="color:#A00">t</b> • <b style="color:#A00">c</b>) 22:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I appreciate you taking another look at the information and arguments presented. I assure you that it doesn't just look weird to me, but to anyone familiar, even on a basic level, with any biological field. All scientific journals italicize species and genera names in journal article titles. Is this not similar? Is it not an easy assumption to believe our readers would see the italicization in the article title and then immediately below it in the lead and throughout the rest of the article and realize this is standard biological style and not be confused with "emphasis"? Cheers, --Rkitko (talk) 01:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * A timely edit on a talk page I watch is pertinent to this debate. An innocent 2-edit IP address asks us why the species name isn't italicized. I can only assume she/he meant the article title, since the rest of the uses of the scientific name are properly formatted in that article. Evidence that it's a widespread convention that astounds editors when they come upon our articles. --Rkitko (talk) 18:20, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Or perhaps this IP had seen the italic title elsewhere, and merely wondered why it wasn't present on that particular article? Flowerparty ☀ 18:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The point is that the IP editor wasn't confused about the supposed "emphasis" being placed on the title, but understood the scientific convention and wondered why it wasn't being followed. --Rkitko (talk) 19:22, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Please keep titles consistent. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Why is article title consistency more important than nomenclatural accuracy and consistency with our own MoS and every single external MoS on the issue of scientific names? --Rkitko (talk) 22:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no issue with accuracy; italicization is purely a matter of style, not correctness. One might as well argue we must italicize article titled after novels, or put quotation marks around article titles for journal articles. We do neither of those things because we recognize that article titles are not meant to be formatted in the same way as the text of the articles. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 00:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It certainly is an issue with accuracy. Novels, games, films, etc. do not have governing nomenclatural authorities that set rules for their naming and use. There is no chance of a slippery slope argument here; if you look below, you'll find very little support for italicization of novels, etc., since that is a matter of style. "...we recognize that article titles are not meant to be formatted" - why? What rule, policy, guideline, etc. governs the formatting of titles? I really do think the entire argument boils down to IDONTLIKEIT, ignoring the need for taxa names to be presented in italics. It looks unprofessional not to italicize them, the same way it's unprofessional to include a year in a botanical authority (e.g. Stylidium debile F.Muell. 1858 instead of Stylidium debile F.Muell.) as opposed to zoological authorities, which require the year. This, too, is governed by the nomenclatural authorities for taxa. --Rkitko (talk) 01:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no governing authority that controls how Wikipedia must format titles in our articles. Provided the title is spelled correctly, it is "correct". We could typeset all titles in bold small capitals if we wanted to. There are many published scientific standards that we routinely ignore, such as the ones about binary prefixes. Since the purpose of article titles is just to be signposts, and since there is no possibility of both an italic and non-italic version of the same title, there is no compelling reason I can see to italicize any of them. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 01:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no governing authority that says that Wikipedia must spell titles correctly, or that the articles must contain any factual information at all. But it would seem that these things are desirable, so that Wikipedia has some credibility. For Wikipedia to not italicize genera and species in article titles because of a technical limitation is understandable. For Wikipedia to continue to do so, with no technical constraint, just because some people don't like it or understand the reason is just lame.--Curtis Clark (talk) 03:50, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose all italicization. Ironholds (talk) 14:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. David Fuchs makes a very good point, where does this stop. This has the potential to change thousands of articles, but beyond that it would seem stupid to put quotation marks in the titles of thousands of song an episode articles. What benefit does this bring? I seems to beit just causes disruption along the way where we have inconsistencies between articles. <b style="color:#E32636;">Rambo's Revenge</b> <b style="color:#FFA500;">(talk)</b>  14:14, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Symbol oppose vote.svg Wikipedia has no obligation to follow any style manual or convention or ISO standard, those that we do follow we follow because we so choose. Wikipedia distinctively ignores title case and has it's own special article layout and design. It has its own unique referencing style and has no throurough standard on English variation, units, or date style. Therefore, it really boils down to how we want it. No standard exists on title formatting and to indroduce such would be to destroy our consistancy and conventions. Italisizing taxa won't make us look more "professional", The World Book and the Merriam-Webster dictionary have no title formatting. The fact is we will only look professional when we fix our mass of incorrect and substub articles instead of wasting time arguing about silly stuff like this.--Ipatrol (talk) 04:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose. Titles are merely an identifier of where we've put something. They should not follow any sort of style rules. --- RockMFR 02:48, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Then why are they called "titles" and not "links" or something? SharkD (talk) 09:06, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose—while on the one hand it's an interesting idea, we don't have proper technical support for it. This lack of technical support means that it cannot consistently provide the correct title across all articles. Consistency is important here. { { Nihiltres | talk | edits} } 15:11, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I beg to differ...I just debugged it the other day when it was broken. I am a programmer, after all.  The only thing I'm lacking is privileges to make the edits myself, but I can request the change from an admin once it's debugged, and they'll have it done in a day or so. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 15:59, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * We most definitely do not have proper support for titles. The DISPLAYTITLE code is a wonderful hack for certain cases, but it doesn't cover everything, and we shouldn't pretend that it does. Try fixing the title of C Sharp (programming language) to "C# (programming language)" or fixing the name of anything which would include square brackets in the title. Until we have a real method of fixing cases like those, pretending that the title is something other than an identifier is inconsistent, and attempting its implementation leads to inconsistencies beyond the original problems. Problems with the string-parsing hacks (see also bug 6455) aren't the concern—the problems with titles are wider-ranging than that. { { Nihiltres | talk | edits} } 18:09, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per my original comments and general pointlessness. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 03:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose italisation. The aesthetic is ugly and most important there is no good reason why books/films/etc. have to be italised. I also don't understand why some people italise the titles in the article. Italisation is only needed in references to distinguish the title of the author, book house, etc. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:42, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Mild oppose. Italicization is a formatting rule, not a fundamental element of a name.  We should keep them separate.  I am all for providing information within articles indicating the formatting rulers usually/traditionally applied to them, but it should take a user preference + extension to use these rules or not when displaying the name a) as article title, or b) as a link to the article from elsewhere. +sj +  21:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Species/genera only

 * 1) This is not an issue of stylisitic whimsy; this is the only correct way to display a taxon title at the rank of genus and below. The other titles considered for italicization (novels, games, etc.) seem to have less support and indeed isn't part of a larger nomenclature like taxa (see ICZN and ICBN). Like I said above, my only concern is for taxa; perhaps the other types of articles could be considered at length. Our taxa articles titled at the scientific name, however, should be a no-brainer. --Rkitko (talk) 23:04, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) I have no opinion about the other uses, but it's about time we had a method to correct the display of scientific names. I remember when I first started editing in 2005 thinking how stupid it was that scientific names couldn't be italicized in titles. Now it's possible.--Curtis Clark (talk) 02:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Absolutely for the scientific names of genera and species. It would be incorrect to write them otherwise. --Eleassar my talk 08:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Italicisation is essential for taxa names as appropriate, and also for gene names in some organisms e.g. . Italics are not decorative, they are important to show what the italicised text actually refers to: for example white is a gene, whereas unitalicised white is a phenotype. Appropriate italicisation, whether in the title or elsewhere, is required if wikipedia is going to appear at all professional in subjects with defined nomenclature rules. Celefin (talk) 13:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) Italicization of the scientific name in the title is the only correct way to display taxa at the level of genus and below. JoJan (talk) 15:32, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) Strong support for biological use...no opinion on literary works, etc. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 16:40, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 7) The italicization of genus and lower names is not just a suggestion to be implemented when one feels like it; it is an internationally required rule which applies to all scientific names of all life forms. It is on the same level as capitalizing the first word of a sentence and putting the correct punctuation at the end and just as wrong not to as to not punctuate a sentence.--Kevmin (talk) 16:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 8) As I also work at Wikispecies, I 100% endorse this implementation and trying to get this to work in Wikispecies also. <b style="color:#0000FF;">OhanaUnited</b><b style="color:green;">Talk page</b> 01:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 9) As I said above, I support this option because it's the correct way for species names.  I'm not opposed to other uses, I just don't know enough to have an educated enough opinion to weigh in yea or nay.  Guettarda (talk) 19:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 10) I agree that it is essential to have all article names that are taxa at the level of genus and below in italics. This is an inflexible rule in biology. Invertzoo (talk) 22:04, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 11) Appropriate italicisation of species is a must. If the use of italicisation is confined just to species, then a template is perhaps adequate. --Geronimo20 (talk) 23:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 12) I'm not really trying to say that italics shouldn't be used for other types of articles, but at least use them for binomens. Abyssal (talk) 02:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 13) The Manual of style insists that specific and generic names are italicised wherever they appear. Every scientific convention insists the same.  Arguing against italicising these things is equivalent to arguing that the 2 in  should not be subscript, or that the i in iPod should not be lowercase. (I have no opinion on other articles, because there is no universal convention to italicise book, film, pokemon etc names.) Martin  (Smith609 – Talk)  14:21, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 14) If it is possible to write the names properly, why not do so? Failing to do so just looks unprofessional, so long as the technology exists to make it practical. Not using italics for species and genus names is like writing somebody's name in all lower case; it's just wrong. Whereas, I don't see any similar need for book names, and so forth, since that's not so universal. Anaxial (talk) 21:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 15) Agree that this is an inflexible rule of biological nomenclature. Sabine's Sunbird  talk  22:44, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 16) Support for genera and species. I don't edit in other areas very frequently, but if editors from other areas where this could be used decide to implement it, I'm for it. J. Spencer (talk) 18:24, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 17) Strong support, as per above. --NoahElhardt (talk) 16:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 18) This should be a no-brainer, if we have the technical means to do so in titles we should do it. And if mathematicians have similar internationally accepted and standardized rules for their symbols we should also respect those. This is not about making up arbitrary rules for Pokemon characters as some people seem to think above. Cacycle (talk) 03:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 19) At least for species and genera names (where it already used for at least 9,000 articles)! What other general rules should we toss out just because we do not like it. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 16:30, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

All appropriate italicization

 * 1) Italicization is a must for scientific genera; it shouldn't be a matter of debate, that is simply how it is written (unless we throw out the rules of the ICZN). However, I also support the italicization for titles of those works(games, plays, books, etc.) that are italicized throughout their respective articles. --  Spotty  11222 17:56, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Unconditional support for italicizing titles of all articles whose subjects fall under the criteria of MOS:T. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 21:58, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) It should be possible to use italics in any title where it is appropriate. But in such a general situation, a template which attempts to guess how it should be done doesn't make sense. Instead there should be an edit box, such as the one that appears when you move an article, but where standard wiki code for formatting can also be entered by the user. --Geronimo20 (talk) 00:00, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This discussion has become confused because two issues are being discussed at the same time. The first issue is "Should italics be allowed in titles?", and the second issue is "If italics are allowed in articles, should they be controlled by a template?". Generally my response is "yes" to the first issue, and "no" to the second. --Geronimo20 (talk) 00:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Good point; I'll see if I can do minor reformatting to fix this. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 00:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Support - This particular template might not be the best solution. However, fully customized italicization can be achieved using the DISPLAYTITLE magic word, so I don't see a reason why articles shouldn't be italicized where appropriate. SharkD (talk) 19:12, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) I think it is an absolute must for genus and species names, and I think it is appropriate to use in certain other titles, such as book titles, as well. Lady  of  Shalott  15:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) &mdash; Heh, I thought this wouldn't be so controversial. [[Image:Face-smile.svg|25px]] —<b style="color:#002BB8">Animum</b> (talk) 02:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) I'm going to propose this to Wikispecies as well. Pzrmd (talk) 22:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

All appropriate italicizations but only if MediaWiki can do this rather than a template
Agree with Geronimo20 above, a template is a bad idea given the number of pages this would affect, another magic pebble to trip innocents. Flowerparty ☀ 22:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * On second thoughts this would imply songs and poems and Simpsons episodes would have to have quotes in the title, which is a senseless bind. Ducking out. Flowerparty ☀ 22:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * 1) I agree with first thought: Why do we need more templates? Keep it simple.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Strongly support italicization with some preference to a mediawiki solution. When I first arrived at Wikipedia I was surprised that article titles weren't italicized, not just for zoological names, but for book titles, etc. as well. That being said, I do think that a mediawiki solution would be better, since it would probably be easier for new editors to use (I imagine the ability to input markup in the title when creating it or something similar, and perhaps reminders on the create page about what should be italicized, quoted, etc., and that this markup would be ignored by the search/database functions so that article titles wouldn't be affected). Also it appears this particular instance of the template has difficulties with things like Pokemon Red and Blue, but if those kinds of problems could be fixed, I would only show slight preference to a mediawiki solution. I respond to the major objections to italicization here: – DroEsperanto(talk 16:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * "It's ugly" - This seems to me like the "Go back to old facebook!" phenomenon that occurs every time Facebook changes its interface. They think it's ugly at first because it's new and not what they're used to, but after a few weeks if it's changed again, they're decide that they want it back. I wonder if editors would find this aesthetically displeasing if it had been around when they first started editing.– DroEsperanto(talk 16:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * First off, you can't refute an argument based in aesthetics, since that's personal preference. Secondly, sans serif fonts are used on the web because they work better on computer displays due to a lack of 'jaggies' and the relative ease they can be shrunk without malforming the text or making elements indistinguishable. Serifs are often thought to be easier to read in large forms or on paper where there's high contrast. Large-form italic san serif typefaces just look bad to me and many others; it's not that Wikipedia would be changing its design, it's pure form. -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 16:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Personal preference is not a reason to oppose a policy. Also, italics are already present in section and sub-section headings. See: Gwen Stefani. – DroEsperanto(talk 16:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Last time I checked the MoS did not explicitly guide article title formatting. There's no policy to discuss here, rather extensions of one with the advent of new tools in the architecture. -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 17:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Saying that a particular style is bad form and expecting others to rate this opinion highly while the relevant policy guideline on the subject fails to mention it seems kind of suspect, IMO. SharkD (talk) 21:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The reason the MoS doesn't mention article italics explicitly is because the ability to do so has only been available for six months (judging by the age of this template, unless there was some other tool that made it possible that I don't know about) and to my knowledge the idea of doing so has not been discussed. Also, italicizing book titles, species names, etc. IS explicitly stated in the Manual of Style and is not "a particular style" like serial commas or order of month and day in dates. It is unarguably bad style to have book titles, etc. unitalicized in article text, and without a compelling reason otherwise this style should be observed in article titles as they appear on the page as a matter of good style and consistency. – DroEsperanto(talk 02:48, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * To ME, consistency would say that all article titles should be uniformly formatted. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 03:18, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * As for the appearance of Serif fonts, maybe this CSS attribute could be used to adjust them? SharkD (talk) 09:02, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "Article titles need to be consistent" - they would be consistent: with MOS. If you are referring to the fact that some articlea that should be italicized wouldn't be, I'd think that that could be easily taken care of with a bot script. It might be messy for the first few days/weeks, but after that I bet it would mostly subside. Also, italics are already present in section and sub-section headings. See: Gwen Stefani, so having un-italicized article titles is also inconsistent.– DroEsperanto(talk 16:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * "Wikipedia does not need to conform to some stylistic preference" - it seems that we do, considering all the text in all of our articles is expected to conform with the Manual of Style. And it is not a preference; having book titles, etc. unitalicized is stylistically wrong.– DroEsperanto(talk 16:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * "World Book/the OED/other websites don't do it": First, Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. I imagine that the reason that article titles in dictionaries and paper encyclopedias are not capitalized is to keep things consistent to facilitate faster searching. However, because people on Wikipedia do not search by looking at a list of article titles, this argument is irrelevant. Furthermore, we do not use other websites as a style guide; just because a gaming website (the example I saw) doesn't italicize game titles in their article titles doesn't mean that we shouldn't, either.– DroEsperanto(talk 16:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Encarta does use italics in article titles, however. Not sure about Britannica, since it requires a subscription IIRC. SharkD (talk) 21:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I have yet to find a Britannica article about an actual book, so I can't comment further on it. I'm not sure whether the others listed in List of online encyclopedias are worth citing. A lot of them use MediaWiki, so they're more likely to follow Wikipedia's lead in such things. SharkD (talk) 09:19, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "If we do this then we'll have to allow quotation marks, etc. into article titles": slippery slope fallacy. If there is a compelling reason not to have quotation marks that doesn't also apply to italics, then I'm sure community consensus would recognize that and we'd make an exception. (Although personally I would support quotation marks in titles, too.)– DroEsperanto(talk 16:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Support per above.--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 21:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Other

 * 1) Oppose unless ... you can get it to a) Correctly italicize titles like Pokémon Red and Blue, (mentioned by Jinnai above) and b) Not add a a bunch more meaningless code at the top of articles, then I can give my support for added consistency. Otherwise forget it. Nifboy (talk) 18:33, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think there's a "wrong title" template that does this, Nifboy. Use that instead if that's your only concern. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 16:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No sense enforcing consistency in an inconsistent fashion. And no, that isn't my only concern, see part B above. Nifboy (talk) 18:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The DISPLAYTITLE magic word seems to work better, IMO. It accepts standard wiki markup as input, so editors will have an easier time getting used to it than they would if they had to learn multiple templates' syntaxes. SharkD (talk) 19:19, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Having watched this discussion unfold, I'm still opposed to having another template between the top of the edit box and the lead paragraph, especially one there for stylistic reasons as opposed to a "red flag" template like unreferenced. Ideally I'd like to get even the infobox the hell out of the way for usability. Nifboy (talk) 15:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This I agree with. It would be nice to place all templates in separate pages. There could even be "article top" or "article bottom" pages to store all the template/categories that then get transcluded. SharkD (talk) 21:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose unless ... it can be changed to take custom italicisation. How would it handle (((GRRRLS))) for example? Otherwise it will end up causing more inconsistency and improper application of the MOS than just ignoring the MOS for the article title. Even then, I'm a little suspect about it ... but if the will is there ... --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 21:22, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose unless ... what rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid said. SharkD (talk) 23:03, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Changed to support given that my requirements have been met. See above. SharkD (talk) 19:11, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose unless ... per Nifboy, it is integrated into Wikimedia software and not just templated above a million articles. --ZXCVBNM (TALK) 00:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * See above.--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 21:27, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

As for the number of articles that go straight to AfD without discussion, I don't know but I've seen several having placed notability tags or unreferenced tags without discussion. Given I've the number of stub articles I've seen on the AfD lists at wikiprojects I'd say the chances of an article going to AfD without discussion are higher than you think. However, this is getting a bit OT. 陣 内 Jinnai 05:41, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid and Nifboy --Cybercobra (talk) 08:38, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose unless you can appropriately italicize something like Pokémon Red and Blue, without in-article code and for everthing appropriate as well as coming up with clear rules for what to italicize and what not to that is beyond the species/genera articles. 陣 内 Jinnai 16:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The template 'Template:wrongtitle' can be used in cases like this. Martin  (Smith609 – Talk)  14:24, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think there should only be a single template to handle all titles instead of multiple templates. SharkD (talk) 17:57, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * There is just such a thing: DISPLAYTITLE. See the topic, below. SharkD (talk) 21:09, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, what is wrongtitle supposed to do? As far as I can tell, all it does is display a text message at the top of the article. SharkD (talk) 18:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 'Template:wrongtitle' would not really address the issue as you wouldn't by the way its implimented from what I've seen be able to get the correct italicization on such combination titles. Also, I do not wish to have in-article coding (except for cases where there truly is a wrong title that needs correction, like lowercase 1st latter). That imo is cruical to not make it overly complex for new users. 陣 内 Jinnai 01:43, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * As for "clear rules", that is the whole purpose of MOS:T, no? SharkD (talk) 21:12, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm talking more about no need for special in-article code. A noob could just create a new article and italicize it the same way they could italicize a word in the body...or very near to that. 陣 内 Jinnai 03:05, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That's exactly what  (your initial point of objection) would do; same for   — existing syntax, nothing new to learn. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly! SharkD (talk) 20:57, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Then that nulls all the votes in this section... Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 16:22, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think so... the people who want to have italics to be custom for articles like these two discussed have had their questions answered satisfactorily (I'd think), but the people who want this integrated into the MediaWiki software probably wouldn't be satisfied with this, because using DISPLAYTITLE is pretty much like this template. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 16:28, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You're right...an oversight on my part. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 17:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't see here or elsewhere a proposal how this ("All appropriate italicizations but only if MediaWiki can do this rather than a template") could possibly work. I understand magic words, but this seems to ask for mind reading. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Basically, having a way to directly edit the appearance of the article title. Or something like a checkbox that turns italics on</off and lets you specify formatting. Something like that could be put into the software itself (in theory). –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 04:01, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, something that is user-friendly, especially to newbies who do not know what a template is. 陣 内 Jinnai 16:18, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Not to be rude, but isn't this simple enough? italictitle is only 14 characters, and doesn't even involve retyping the title unless it's complex, which requires DISPLAYTITLE.  I don't think it could be any simpler. Besides, if you do like I've been doing (place the template on the closing line of the taxobox), it takes up relatively no space in the text area, and does not even interfere with editability.  Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 16:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Such users are unlikely to know how to italicize titles in articles either, so a more experienced editor is most likely going to need to come along at some point and do some cleanup anyway. SharkD (talk) 17:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * (outdent)On what grounds do you base this? You are assuming somehow people at Wikipedia have some unnatural level of knowledge about italicization that the rest of the world does not? I can't agree. I know a lot of people who aren't regular editors that know mroe than many regular editors on the proper italicization rules. Since the former aren't Wikipedians, they aren't going to know what a template is by default. That's why, if we are to impliment it, it must be in the wiki tools and be done in a similar manner to italicization in an article currently. 陣 内 Jinnai 04:59, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Regardless of the reason, if they can't type  then cleanup is going to be required anyway.   isn't so different that it constitutes a giant learning gap. SharkD (talk) 18:12, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually that is. A lot of editors come by, fix an article they are reading, and don't come back. They will never learn about templates. That's just adding another layer to basically alienate new users to Wikipedia by requiring them to learn some of the slightly more advanced tools (ie stuff not on the wiki tools they can click a button with). That is not what we should be doing for something so basic as title italicization. 陣 内 Jinnai 23:48, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't buy your reasoning. If a new editor creates an article without a taxobox, I fix it, without complaining. Why should I do any different for an article needing an italic title?--Curtis Clark (talk) 05:15, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Good for you. That doesn't help that new editor learn about it and espeically if they are an IP editor going and placing an explanation on their talk page will probably yeild zero return. It's also yet 1 more template every wikipedian must remember to use at all appropriate junctures. Whereas adding it to the tools would make it much more integrated so everyone, even those who are not reading this discussion know about it. Also the more templates you have in a page, the harder for an editor not familiar with coding has at editing a particular page. While 1 piece doesn't have too much, using something that should be done via tools as a template could be seen as template creep. 陣  内 Jinnai 18:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * How long would these editors' contributions even last before they are removed given that they can't use the cite tag? How many new articles by anons have gone straight to AfD with little discussion? SharkD (talk) 21:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Doesn't matter how long it will last. If it lasts 10 minutes or 10 months. It's the idea that we set up a baseline that is newbie friendly and not a hierarchy of coding through templates that discourages newbies because concepts that are easy to grasp for these people are denied to them because they don't have knowledge of advanced techniques. First impressions are key, especially when you want to show someone how easy it is to edit and create a new article. This kind of template goes against that. If requires specialized knowledge.

Somewhat broken
Hi all, I noticed that this template is broken for articles containing parenthesis. For example, on Aa (plant) this template puts in, which doesn't match and consequently fails to work. I double-checked that this is not the result of my recent modifications to the template; it was a pre-existing problem. Good luck finding the bug! —Remember the dot (talk) 05:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * After some quick sandbox tests, I've decided that most likely, one of the templates referenced has been altered. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 16:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Recent edits:


 * italictitle 00:28, 16 June 2009 Remember the dot (talk | contribs) m (1,074 bytes) (switched to cleaner DISPLAYTITLE, shouldn't break anything but please feel free to revert if you find something that does)
 * italictitle 23:20, 15 June 2009 Remember the dot (talk | contribs) m (1,107 bytes) (moved Template:Italictitle to Template:Italic title: two words)
 * str sub 22:32, 13 June 2009 Dragons flight (talk | contribs) (5,172 bytes) (fix)


 * Hope this is useful! Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 17:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Eureka!!!
 * A major edit has happened at str sub which changes its functionality. The template has been altered such that the starting position in the substring is one index to the right of what it used to be.  Therefore, the "start" position in italictitle needs to be moved one to the left and the "length" parameter needs to be incremented 1. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 17:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually more fundamentally, it was returning n+1 characters when asked for n characters which was terrible functionality. I fixed it to be a zero-indexed string returning n characters matching the string function routine that may actually be available soon. Sorry if this broke other things, I didn't spend much time checking. Dragons flight (talk) 17:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It'd probably be best if you changed str find to be zero-indexed also. I think that's the source of the problem. —Remember the dot (talk) 01:24, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Um...is anyone with the proper privileges going to fix this? I'm only a "user" and an "autoconfirmed user" and can't do it. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 16:59, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I've been messing around with getting DISPLAYTITLE to work, but I don't see any results. I've tried in article namespace as well. SharkD (talk) 18:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why it doesn't seem to work at times, but I got it to italicize the words inside the parentheses in the title of my sandbox. I was unable to get a revised italic title to do this. —Ost (talk) 19:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Is it possible the that title needs to be the same in plain text? I was also able to get Red and Blue to work, but adding characters or changing capitalization seems to stop the formatting. —Ost (talk) 19:12, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Crap. I was hoping to be able to specify an arbitrary title. I guess JavaScript is the only way. SharkD (talk) 04:32, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * DISPLAYTITLE requires the replacement title to be essentially the same as the original title after formatting etc is stripped out, see Celefin (talk) 11:52, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That seems like kind of a silly stipulation given that editors have considered it necessary to create templates to get around it anyway. SharkD (talk) 19:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Such templates should really be discouraged. Which ones are you referring to? —Remember the dot (talk) 02:48, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I misunderstood. I thought templates like pound actually changed the titles. What they in fact do is alert the reader with a text prompt. SharkD (talk) 09:10, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Attention anyone with proper privileges!!!! I got it to work. However, I do not have the proper privileges to edit the template.  All anyone needs to do is copy the content of User:Bob the Wikipedian/test (yup) to Template:Italictitle and save the changes.  Thanks!  Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 03:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well...saying so here apparently isn't working. I'll go put in an edit request at the admin noticeboard. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 19:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Done, as mentioned there. Try the editprotected template next time. :) Thanks, Amalthea  21:33, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Moving articles
Heads up, if a move from latin name to common name is performed, it will stay there and italic the common name until someone fixes it. Is there a way so that the bot will scan the article later on once in a while to check for abnormalities like this? <b style="color:#0000FF;">OhanaUnited</b><b style="color:green;">Talk page</b> 07:08, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That's just a normal part of various required follow-up edits after a page move (adapt article body, fixing double redirects, possibly fixing links in WhatLinkshere). -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 08:04, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Good observation, though. I'll make note of that for future reference. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 07:04, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Conclusion?
Has any conclusion been reached about when it's appropriate to italicize titles? Looking at the above discussion/poll, it seems there's more support than opposition in the case of species and genera, but more opposition than support in the case of anything else. Would that (i.e. italicize species and genera only) be a reasonable basis for a guideline, or do people want to discuss this further (or are they still discussing it somewhere else?)--Kotniski (talk) 07:42, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I presented two examples to the Opera Project, and there was a somewhat weak consensus against italicizing the titles of operas in their article names (as opposed to italicizing them in the body of articles, which is of course standard). -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 08:46, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't see how you get "more support than opposition in the case of species and genera". If there is (it's unclear because of several conditional opinions), it's very close to even.  Powers T 15:31, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, numerically maybe you're right, though those that have actually addressed the specific issue (i.e. realize that the situation with species is not the same as with book titles and so on) seem to support italicization here. It probably ought to be discussed (maybe it is being) at the various flora and fauna project pages.--Kotniski (talk) 16:04, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well we know what result that would produce, don't we? Powers T 18:12, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd say from the discussion above it is clear that consensus is to not italicize articles about books, albums, video games, etc.; consensus on the species/genera seems more difficult to determine. I'd be inclined to say that consensus is against it (counting all of the supports for italicization, it's about 65% support for genera/species, which seems to fall pretty much into the "no consenus" range, defaulting to "keep it the way its been", a.k.a. no italicization), but for obvious reasons I wouldn't be able to call that because of NPOV issues. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 19:34, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there is a conclusion
It's been just over a week since the last comment in the polling area, so I've gone through and read the entire page and also rounded up opinions from the Tree of Life Wikiproject page. I did not find opinions in WP:WikiProject Literature or WP:WikiProject Mathematics. Opinions were read word for word, and tallied up accordingly. If an editor expressed italics should always be allowed, I took that to mean they would support literary works, genus and species articles, mathematical topics, and foreign phrase articles.

I am pleased to present to you the results of this debate:

Literature
 * As is: 29 against, 20 for
 * After website integration: 26 for, 23 against

Tree of Life
 * As is: 38 for, 21 against
 * After website integration: 43 for, 16 against

Mathematics
 * As is: 22 for, 25 against
 * After website integration: 28 for, 19 against

Foreign phrases
 * As is: 25 against, 18 for
 * After website integration: 23 for, 20 against

Going by the results of the poll, it is safe to say that the Tree of Life WikiProject may proceed with italicization of titles. (Believe it or not, the debate there is not "should we use it?", it's "which way works best?".) (I know, I just used four punctuation marks in a row.)

Mathematics and foreign phrases were hardly touched upon, so it would be wise to discuss these two topics further before making a decision.

Literary works seem to lean away from italicization unless it is integrated with the website. No further comments.

Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 20:33, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Hold the phone, Bob! There is no clear consensus to allow individual WikiProjects to decide to italicize their titles contrary to the manual of style.  Of course the Tree of Life folks would like to do so, but there's no consensus that they should be allowed to.  Powers T 23:34, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not convinced it violates the MoS. If so, doesn't eBay? Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 03:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, there's no consensus that they should not be allowed to, and the specialists are probably the people best placed to make the judgement (i.e. how wrong is it to write a species/genus name without italics). General editors just saying it looks ugly (which translates to "it's not what I'm used to") are probably not the people to make the call.--Kotniski (talk) 08:51, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * In other words, you're dismissing the arguments against allowing italicization because you disagree with them. Powers T 12:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't say I have any strong opinion on the matter, but yes, I think "it looks ugly" is a pretty weak argument coming from seasoned WP editors - not because I disagree with it, but because it doesn't mean anything - editors' aesthetic senses have developed to like what they've got used to seeing and producing, and would change after a while if they got used to seeing and producing something else.--Kotniski (talk) 15:27, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "It looks ugly" may be a weakish argument (so is "It's required by the MOS", IMO, since the MOS was written before this was even possible), but I personally oppose this as much because of the inconsistencies that it will inevitably create as because I think it looks ugly. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 15:36, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Has this RfC been advertised at MoS to determine the position of the editors that watch those pages? —Ost (talk) 15:40, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ayup. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 20:43, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I checked, and this doesn't fall uner the Manual of Style...it falls under Naming Conventions. Perhaps that's why we haven't gotten a response there.  I've posted a request to have a policy added that would require genus and lower-level taxon articles titles italicized.  I requested they review this discussion first, though, since there is clear controversy outside the Tree of Life WikiProject about whether this should be done. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 19:14, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Website integration?
Sorry to be lazy, but to save me searching the debates, what does "after website integration" mean in the above results?--Kotniski (talk) 08:54, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it means that a button in the edit toolbar above the edit box should be provided for this function. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Seems a bit weird; why should this function have a button when so many more common ones don't, and why would that be a significant condition for allowing the function to be used?--Kotniski (talk) 15:30, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the meaning was that it would be something like having a button somewhere on the edit screen which, if checked, makes the title italic; therefore, it wouldn't clutter up the page even more with another template. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 15:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I don't think that would work. There must be a template or magic word or something in the wikitext somewhere (particularly since sometimes it's not the whole title that needs to be italicized).--Kotniski (talk) 15:57, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think many concerns for integration were dispelled with DISPLAYTITLE, as that command is integrated into MediaWiki and not a template viewed as hackish. DISPLAYTITLE would allow custom italics that explicitly state how the title will appear instead of a template that guesses (in the case of a disambiguating parenthetical).  However, the command's concerns at WP:VPT should be considered to ensure it behaves in the manner discussed above. —Ost (talk) 16:24, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * DISPLAYTITLE doesn't clutter up the page any less than using this template... in fact, it's less clear (although does have more customizability). I think that many users who want integration want, for example, a third field on the "move page" screen for "displayed title". A page could then also be "moved" to itself with a change of displayed title. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 20:45, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I do now see that the concern with cluttering pages seems to outweigh any concerns with underlying implementation and the "move page" approach seems like a good potential solution. —Ost (talk) 21:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Something like the Move Page dialogue might work too. I.e. you type the title into a form field. SharkD (talk) 20:17, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Wait...so for example, Tyrannosaurus would be moved to Tyrannosaurus, which doesn't even display properly and is an invalid page title? That just doesn't make sense.  Even if it worked, we'd have millions of redirects taking up valuable server space just to do what could be done with a word in double curly braces. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 05:21, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, just figured out what you meant. So there would be two fields, one to type the edit summary and one for the alternate title.  Nice idea, although the template sure makes it easier. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 05:24, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm missing the point of all this. Surely the template (or magic word, it makes little difference which) produces relatively little clutter in the wikitext (compared with all those categories and interlanguage links, for example), but to introduce a new field in the editor interface especially for this situation, and presumably a new column in the database, really is unnecessary clutter and complexity when we consider what a small percentage of articles this would ever be needed for. --Kotniski (talk) 09:41, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem is that it would add unneeded additional complexity for new editors. Categories and interwikis are simple enough, and even though they take up a lot of room they are more or less intuitive for new users. Magic words and such, not so much. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 14:01, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * How is less simple and intuitive than any of the other thousands of template calls we use in articles? I think this is just an imaginary problem.--Kotniski (talk) 14:08, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I must agree here. It's not too difficult to figure out what italictitle does.  Any newbie could figure that out, even if they don't understand the categories.  No reason to add a field to the main code just for this, as it would be overused and abused quite readily by vandals.  Also, you'd have to rewrite the vandalism revert tools, like Twinkle, so that it could also revert a custom title.  Keeping it simple with a 15-character template is the easiest to implement and the easiest to maintain.


 * No new lines even need to be added if it is placed on the same line as the taxobox opening or closing braces. I prefer placing it behind the closing braces so it is more hidden. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 18:33, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think DISPLAYTITLE is more straightforward in its usage than ITALIC TITLE. SharkD (talk) 10:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

TL;DR
So, long story short, we throw out the MoS and plump for inconsistent heading formatting, right? Last time I checked, italicisation was a formatting issue, rather than an inherent part of the language. There may well be academics that mark down for failing to press Ctrl+I in the correct places. I fail to see how this is Wikipedia's problem. DISPLAYTITLE should be used for real rendering issues, rather than to make an arbitrary title fit your chosen standard. Next, you'll be suggesting that the House in House of Leaves should be rendered in blue. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 04:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * If there is ever such a consensus in the literature WikiProject, then yes. As it is, ToL was the only one that reached consensus, so the guidelines were added only to the ToL naming convention guidelines, not all of Wikipedia.  Also, anonymous IPs are rarely regarded with as much respect as you expect to receive from such a comment.


 * This page is depressing. I'm removing it from my watchlist so I can move on with life. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 04:34, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Last time I checked, the following two things were true: anonymous IPs are editors too; and WikiProjects do not get to overrule the MoS. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 05:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I think 81.111.114.131 got his argument exactly the wrong way round: the Manual of Style demands italics for certain terms.  or   provide the mechanism to do that. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * . MoS demands italics in prose.  I believe it is widely accepted that italicising the title is overkill.   81.111.114.131 (talk) 05:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The Manual of Style does not limit its rules to prose; this is unsurprising and without bearing on this discussion because it was written before the tools  or   were available. Nevertheless, it does not support your argument.
 * You don't expect a phrase like "I believe it is widely accepted …" to be taken seriously? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "OMG, formatting is inconsistent! Let's get rid of italics in prose!!! And WTF, Wikipedia uses headings??!!!" SharkD (talk) 10:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

If there is some sort of issue here with a not-logged-in user adding his or her comments, allow me (someone who is logged in) to back them up. I agree completely with what 81.111.114.131 wrote. Powers T 19:53, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll echo LtPowers' statement. So what if the user isn't logged in? That only matters at RFA, and there only to prevent massive sockpuppetry attempts. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 21:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually the reason it upset me was because I had a feeling it was LtPowers, although I could be mistaken. This is an RFA, though, isn't it?  Sorry to both the IP and LtPowers if I assumed wrongly, no harm was meant by it. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 21:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It's an RFC (above, technically), not RFA. I think LtPowers was just concered that the IP's opinion wasn't being taken seriously. And incidently, speaking of being logged in or not, a good comprimise could be an option to allow the titles to be italic or not based on pref (though that would still bring the argument of which should be default). ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 22:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Wherever one goes to tweak one's own WP stylesheet, just add

h1 i {font-style:normal !important;}

to nuke all italics in the title.--Curtis Clark (talk) 04:55, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Trust me, if the primary objection was that I personally didn't want to see the italics, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Powers T 13:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed... any logged in user can set the preference themselves, this is more about the readers. If this is standardized, I probably would just hide it with a style (perhaps a new gadget?) –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 15:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Sadly, I can't enable it with a style, since articles such as Morelia (genus) would not be properly italicized.--Curtis Clark (talk) 02:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Example is confusing
The usage example reads:


 * will italicise as follows:
 * Foo → Foo
 * Foo (bar) → Foo (bar)
 * Foo (baz) → Foo (baz)
 * Foo (quok) → Foo (quok)

In the first and second outputs, why aren't bar and baz itatlicized? And in the third output, why isn't Foo italicized? (It's also a bit confusing that parentheses are incorrectly referred to as brackets [] in the documentation.) Robert K S (talk) 05:15, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * You mis-numbered the examples – there are four, and you misrepresented the behaviour of the first (Foo → Foo).
 * In the second and third (1st & 2nd in your numbering) example, the terms in parentheses (bar, baz) are not italicized because the documentation says: "Titles which contain brackets are italicised before the first open bracket."
 * In the fourth (3rd in your numbering) example, nothing is italicized because the template's invocation does not contain the term "quok". This leaves the theoretical case where everything, including terms in parentheses, should be italicized, untreated by the template.
 * On the whole, and this has been pointed out by some above, it seems to me the usage of this template is more complicated and less flexible than simply using . -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:03, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

RfC and revision to naming conventions
Presently, this template is being used to italicize the titles of some articles that fall under certain WikiProjects, but there has not been a corresponding change to the naming conventions. It is desirable that there is consistency between consensus reached at individual WikiProjects, the implementation of that consensus throughout articles, and a convention that explains when this template is to be used and when it is to be avoided. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:30, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * This was discussed quite a lot some time ago; I believe the conclusion reached was that genera/species names should be italicized in titles, but most other things not. This is what the naming conventions you link to say, as well. Are you proposing any change to this?--Kotniski (talk) 10:25, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Could you provide a link to this specific discussion page? I am not able to find it and I do not understand when this template is used or not (for example: A Clockwork Orange and Titanic).—Totie (talk) 14:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think most of the discussion took place higher up on this page, in fact, though more probably happened at the flora and fauna project page somewhere. I don't believe italics should be used for films, as in those examples (well, personally I wouldn't mind, but consensus is probably still against).--Kotniski (talk) 14:14, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, I did not see that. The conventions are just so extensive. ;) Would it harm to add this information on the template page as well? This way it should be easy for people that do not know the consensus in which cases they may use the template. In addition, we should cleanup every use that is not necessary according to the convention.—Totie (talk) 18:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I can add that right now, good idea. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 19:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)