Template talk:Western Australian elections

italics
Re my removal of italics and 's reversion ...

MOS:ITALICS says "Italics ... are used for various specific purposes in Wikipedia, outlined below" and then lists the specific purposes, which does not include "future dates". I think that by implication this means that in general italics ought not be used for other purposes, otherwise what's the point of having MOS:ITALICS at all? Mitch Ames (talk) 02:54, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

See also: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Text formatting. Mitch Ames (talk) 03:06, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The MOS is not exhaustive, and also has a section about when not to use italics (MOS:NOITALIC). What has been done on election year templates for a decade or so is not listed as being prohibited, so I really can't see the problem here. Number   5  7  03:19, 19 January 2017 (UTC)


 * As I pointed out at WT:Manual of Style/Text formatting using italics for arbitrary purposes defeats the purpose of enumerating specific purposes, reduces the value of italics (because it's harder to know what the italics formatting means in any given usage - especially in this case when there's nothing to tell us what the italics mean) and reduces the consistency of the text formatting in general.
 * According to WP:NA "Navigation templates provide navigation", ie they are not intended to provide information about the contents of the article, such as whether it is in the future. If a reader wants to know if the election has happened yet (ie it is in the future) they will likely read the article to find out. Mitch Ames (talk) 07:50, 21 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Don't be obtuse. It's really useful to quickly signify that an election in the template hasn't happened yet. There is absolutely no reason to remove that except that one feels like being argumentative. The consistency argument doesn't work when their usage is completely consistent across all of these articles, as you yourself acknowledge. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 08:38, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

This could end up as WP:LAME. Why use italics at all? A reader has to know what it means. Why not just say say exactly what the info is with superscript or something, and the whole issue just disappears?


 * I think the fact that this continued beyond the explanation of why italics are used (and have been for a decade or so without complaint) means it already is WP:LAME, even more so when I see an attempt has been made to to amend the MOS to prohibit this... Presumably the italics idea developed because other solutions (like the above) weren't considered better (the template looks awful with the superscript). Number   5  7  13:08, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You might also want to input into the discussion Mitch has started at the MOS page here. Number   5  7  13:13, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes I agree they do not look as pretty, but are we about looking good or providing information. Perhaps the following is better?


 * I possibly should have explained the differences above. Only the 17 will show the pop up.  I would have preferred to have the whole 2017 do this but because it is wikilinked the Beta release hover card interferes with the other pop up.   Aoziwe (talk) 11:26, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * My 10c is that MOS:EMPHASIS says "Emphasis may be used to draw attention to an important word or phrase within a sentence, when the point or thrust of the sentence may otherwise not be apparent to readers, or to stress a contrast". I think this is a situation where we are stressing a contrast. The 2017 election is not like the other elections because it has not yet happened and therefore probably should be emphasised. It may be obvious to the reader (if they are WA residents who would presumably know if they had voted already that year or not) or they may need to click through to see what the difference is, a difference that is evident in the first sentence ("will be held on ..."). I notice that we use this italicisation in other templates, e.g. infobox Australian place has fields to show the neighbouring suburbs/localities. If we look at Cottesloe, Western Australia (a coastal suburb), we see that Indian Ocean is shown as the western neighbour while Peppermint Grove etc (with no italics) are other neighbours. Thus the reader is alerted that the Indian Ocean is different to the other suburb names. This seems to be common practice in these infoboxes. I see no problem with using it in a navbox because it is advice about navigation - "you can click on this but it might not be exactly what you are expecting it to be (i.e. a past election)" - if anything, it encourages the reader to be alert to the lede when they read the article that something is not as they might expect. Kerry (talk) 00:58, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * This seems to be common practice in these infoboxes — I suggest that listing an ocean as a suburb is not a good idea because an ocean is not a suburb/lga per Description column of Template:Infobox Australian place#Parameters and "Suburbs" displayed for type=suburb. If we really want to list the ocean in the navbox, then the navbox should be "fixed" first so it doesn't say "suburb". Mitch Ames (talk) 13:00, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

If we want to indicate that a particular entry in the list of elections is in the future, why don't we just say so explicitly, ie:

This makes it clear and explicit, without the reader needing guess what the italics means. At any point in time there should only be one such entry per group, so clutter ought not be a problem.Mitch Ames (talk) 13:07, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree - but they did not like the superscript. Why not just state the actual as you say!!   Aoziwe (talk) 13:27, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I think this edit makes all of the above rather LAME ?  I wish I had thought of it first.   Aoziwe (talk) 10:25, 23 January 2017 (UTC)