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


 * Wikipedia talk:Manual of Styles
 * Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style--Archive Directory

Captions 1
Caption question. Most graphics don't seem to have captions, but the issue came up in blackface as to whether captions should be italic or not. For myself, I find it confusing, since if the caption, as in the case in the blackface article, includes something that would normally be italicized, it becomes non-italic in the caption itself. That is, which is preferable:


 * 17-year cicada

or
 * 17-year cicada

Or, in the tougher case:
 * Al Jolson, in  The Jazz Singer

or
 * Al Jolson, in The Jazz Singer

So, here's a proposal for discussion:

Captions 2

 * Photos and other graphics should have captions unless they are "self-captioning" as in reproductions of album or book covers.
 * Captions should follow the style of article text, using italics only for normally italicized material.

Ortolan88 18:46 Dec 10, 2002 (UTC)


 * I like the proposal. Instead of italicizing the caption text, I'd like to see a smaller font size. Mrwojo 06:53 Dec 11, 2002 (UTC)
 * I'd like to see a caption style and let the CSS decide what to do with it. DanKeshet 16:30 Dec 12, 2002 (UTC)
 * That's what I was hinting at. As a downside, it would pretty much rule out setting the caption style in italics and trying to un-italicize book titles (etc.) with HTML (such as '' produces). Mrwojo 05:50 Dec 14, 2002 (UTC)

Added to Manual of Style. Ortolan88 06:12 Jan 25, 2003 (UTC)

I think maybe captions should be in italics after all. If they aren't in italics, they are sometimes hard to pick out. Lots of people seem to have felt this instinctively. There are as many captions in italics as not. I changed a caption to regular text type, following the current Manual of Style, only put in place just a few days ago, and changed it right back to italics, it looked so odd the other way. Ortolan88

Header markup
Someone has changed the header advice (and markup of the style guide) to state there should be no space between a ==Headline== and the following text. Since virtually all wikipedia articles are marked up otherwise, since there was no discussion here of this change, and since it changes the appearance of the articles in an fundamental way, let's discuss it now.

Which looks better?
Text starting immediately below the headline?

Or does this look better?
With a blank line between the headline and the text.

Note that almost all newspaper headlines, crossheads in books and magazine articles, and the like are set off by white space. I prefer the appearance of the blank line between the headline and the text. Ortolan88


 * Actually Rambot didn't have the space seen in example two so there are at least 35,000 articles in that format. When I copyedit I use the dominant style already in the article but when I create articles myself I usually tend to not have the extra space. This is especially important in the WikiProject Countries articles like the United States where you need to have a "Main article" link right before the the heading and in the WikiProject Elements articles where vertical space is minimized. But in regular articles its fine to have the trailing space. So I usually base my choice on whether or not to have the trailing space on the particular needs of the article. In other words IMO we should leave this up to a case-by-case decision. ---mav


 * I prefer the one with the blank line, and I have often changed articles to fit that pattern, even though I expect it probably annoys some people. Sometimes other people change them back, and I don't have the courage to revert the change because it might lead to an edit war! (Or possibly just because I'm too lazy.) It would be nice if the version with the blank line was made a MoS guideline, so I could get my own way. :) Oh - just read mav's reply. Erm, well, we could make it standard for new "regular" articles, anyway... -- Oliver P. 03:52 Mar 7, 2003 (UTC)

But what should the Manual of Style say? Ram-man changed a couple of fundamental things about the Rambot when asked. I suspect he would space the headers however we thought they should be spaced. He's always running over his articles with his amazing machine and could change them if needed. But the issue is what looks better and what should we recommend. I think the headers followed by a space always looks better, more professional, etc, regardless of the topic, or mode of authorship. It would actually be better if the ==Headers== had a space after them by style sheet design. It is kind of amateurish for us to be either putting the space in or taking it out. According to any design I know about, the style sheet would put the space in. Ortolan88


 * That is the way it used to be but it was changed specifically for the WikiProjects so that they would stop using ugly HTML hacks to accomplish the same effect of a header with no trailing white space. IMO the leading white space should also be removed from the style-sheet so that we can, if and when needed, have paragraphs with a minimal amount of white space between them. This isn't an issue in regular articles because headings are few and far between within them but WikiProject articles are highly structured with many headings so having the extra leading and trailing space made them look real bad - then the common usage of HTML hacks before the style sheet was changed. --mav PS - there is no need for nowiki tags for == heading == when it is in running text.

Thanks, I was tired of typing that. If articles and WikiProjects have different styles, then the answer is (ta-da!) different style sheets. Ortolan88


 * Hm. That is a whole different can of worms that requires us to come up with another wiki syntax. -= heading =- perhaps? --mav


 * Um, we already went to a great deal of trouble to ensure that headers wouldn't be followed by whitespace if they weren't followed by a blank line in the source text. Has this ceased to work on some browsers? (Okay on Mozilla 1.3b.) Is the crummy HTML trick employed by the parser not standard enough (in which case we could improve it behind the scenes)? I see no need for a new syntax. --Brion 04:46 Mar 7, 2003 (UTC)


 * I would prefer us to keep the current syntax and let the user decide if leading and trailing whitespace is needed. --mav 04:52 Mar 7, 2003 (UTC)


 * Published books and professionally printed publications in general usually use an area of white space, but not a full extra line. Typesetters no doubt have developed an exact guideline for this, but a decent rough rule of thumb is to add one half of a line extra space between a subheading and the body text. (Can we do this in HTML without horrible kludges to the stylesheet? I'd have to look that up. Brion would probably know off the top of his head.)


 * This is why headings that have a blank line after them look somehow wrong, and yet when you get rid of the blank line they still don't look quite right: without realising it, we are all used to seeing the less-than-one-extra-line, more-than-no-extra-line layout that the professionals use. The half-line sets the heading off from the body text nicely, and yet (because it's a fraction closer to the para below than it is to the para above) it still visibly "belongs" to its text. Tannin 06:38 Mar 7, 2003 (UTC)


 * I think you are on to something. This may make the pro-space and anti-space people both happy. --mav


 * OK, I looked it up. You can do it in HTML, and it's really easy. I've made up an example page HERE. See what you think. Tannin 10:30 Mar 7, 2003 (UTC)


 * The only times I've used the anti-space format are when adding a "main article" style link - and in that case I think it's right that the main article link is closely tied to the header, and the anti-space format is perfect. But for normal writing, I like Tannin's 1/3 space.


 * NB, in the case of headers immediately followed by bulleted lists, you always get a full space, regardless of whether you include a newline. Don't know if this is correct/desirable... Martin

You don't even need a hack: CSS supports "relative units": Just set the space after the heading to 0.5 em. I think it would be better if the heading-para space were always the same, irrespective of whitespace in wiki markup. -- Tarquin 11:09 Mar 7, 2003 (UTC) (hmm, no wait, that'll mean the font size of the heading.... in that case, it's the space-before of H*+P you want to set -- the upper margin of a paragraph which immediately follows a heading.)
 * em: the 'font-size' of the relevant font
 * ex: the 'x-height' of the relevant font

This manual gave contradictory advice about italics
This manual, under words as words, says that when one writes about a word rather than using the word to write about what it refers to, it should be italicized. That convention is often followed in publishing. Thus:


 * Bishop is derived from a Greek word.

(with italics), and


 * John Smith is the Bishop of Wherever.

(without italics).

Usually it's better to begin an article by writing about the thing rather than the word, thus:


 * A dog is an animal that barks.

but sometimes one should write about the word, especially if there's a need to clarify divergent meanings, or clear up confusion about the word, or to say that the word is offensive, etc., thus:


 * Dog is a term that, when used by omphalogic veterinarians, does not mean the same thing as when used by lay persons.

Thus sometimes it is appropriate that the first appearance of the title word, which should of course be bolded, is also an instance of writing about the word rather than about the thing the word refers to, so that it should be italicized. For example, in Oriental Orthodoxy, it once said something to this general effect:


 * Oriental Orthodoxy is a confusing term, because oriental means eastern, but Oriental Orthodoxy differs from Eastern Orthodoxy.

So I deleted the statement that one should use bold italics only for terms that are always italicized. It contradicts the "words as words" section. Michael Hardy 00:33, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I believe the sentence you deleted applied only to the convention of bolding the title in the first sentence--I think the point was that in that specific context you should only use bold italic if the word or phrase would normally be italicized, such as the titles of books, or names of songs. I think the direction is appropriate. older &ne; wiser 01:09, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * And now I've altered the sentence so that it says what you thought it meant. Now it does not contradict the advice given in the later section.  And now it makes sense. Michael Hardy 00:58, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * What a clever trick! I've changed it back to what it was. Your special case is not a justification - David Gerard 18:28, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Whitespace under headings
The chapter "Headline style" says: "Note that with the == brackets used, no space under the headline is needed. The space should be removed.", but if one looks at the source code, not putting an empty line after the heading will result in the first paragraph of the text not being marked with the &lt;p&gt; tag, and for this reason there will be no whitespace rendered under the heading (In my browser anyway). So, in order to make the markup to be produced correctly, it is necessary to put an empty line after the heading. (IMO, this makes the text look somewhat cleaner in the edit window as well). Timo Honkasalo 09:15 May 14, 2003 (UTC)


 * our parser doesn't use P tags correctly anyway, since they are never closed. -- Tarquin 11:56 14 May 2003 (UTC)


 * So, it's more of software rather than style issue. After all, the ideal would be that the empty line wouldn't make any difference, because the users are not going to be consistent with it anyway. Timo Honkasalo 13:20 May 14, 2003 (UTC)


 * Indeed. I've raised the matter with the mailing list a few times ... -- Tarquin 14:54 14 May 2003 (UTC)

Mixing Article introduction (bold) and Title style (italic) to boltalic
I have the feeling, that this two things should not be mixed. Other people seem to think, they should. I:: I don't see a reason, why film titles should be italic. What is the advantage? In normal text, to make it visible, ok. But in the Article introduction, it is already visible. So WHY? Fantasy 06:48 23 Jun 2003 (UTC)


 * Because by convention all film titles are always in italics (this is a standard English convention far bigger than any conventions we have for just Wikipedia). And we have a convention to bold the subject of an article the first time it is mentioned. So we bold and italicize movie title the first time they are displayed in an article. --mav


 * ok, this makes it clear. I did not know that this is an English Standard (I am not a native english speaker). Thanks for pointing this out, Fantasy 07:50 23 Jun 2003 (UTC)


 * Lovely to wake up and find this sorted - thanks mav and Fantasy -- sannse 08:17 23 Jun 2003 (UTC)

feel natural when translating from German).
 * Outbreak of War in Europe - is War a proper noun?
 * Scandinavian Campaigns - the plural makes me confused.
 * War Comes to the West - must be wrong, i suppose.
 * The Eastern Front, The Invasion of Italy, The Invasion of France and The End of the War in Europe - I'm as surpriced as with The European theater

An alternative would of course be, to rewrite the sentense of the manual, in a similar vein as in regards to UK/US spelling.

-- Ruhrjung 06:58 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)


 * It's not an easy writeup - the Chicago Manual of Style has 40 pages on the subject, and not everybody on Wikipedia agrees with all of its recommendations either. Stan 13:42 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)

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

See Table of contents. - Patrick 11:43, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Unambiguous depictions
I fully expect argument on the point I added with regard to captions for graphics, and I'm very open for discussion. My take on the matter, though, is that when an article has, for example, "George Patton" in big h1 type right at the top, and the first sentence has "George Smith Patton" in bold, when I then see a picture of some guy in an Army uniform, my first thought is not "I wonder who that is, maybe it's Omar Bradley."

And I admit I'm prejudiced in this respect because it was the common style of a now-banned user to put these in. I think it's redundant. I'm open for comments. - Hephaestos 00:59, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * I agree. It's obvious the picture is of the person concerned by the article. Now if it's a group shot and we need to say which person is George Patton, a caption is needed -- Tarquin 09:14, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * Yep. Makes good sense to me. --Camembert 12:20, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * Sure, but one still may want to add an alt text ;-) -- User:Docu


 * Agreed, although I often forget, but I'm trying to improve. :) - Hephaestos 15:09, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I think this discussion needs another go; I perceived some consensus on the subject earlier, but evidently some disagree. Regardless of the decision, we really should reach some kind of agreement on standardization here. - Hephaestos 15:09, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Section heading styles/sizes
I notice two styles of section demarcation in Wikipedia articles. The first being the one used in this article ==xxx== and the other that uses ===xxx=== as in Joel and Ethan Coen. Is there supposed to be a standard one to use in every article, or is the choice a matter of what pleases the last person editting the article? - Bevo 15:49, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * The Manual of Style says
 * Start with "==" (that's two equal signs). If the resulting font looks too big (as many people feel), that's an issue for the Wikipedia-wide stylesheet, not individual articles.
 * so the Joel and Ethan Coen is not in compliance with this. Angela. 15:53, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * Well, it wasn't, but it is now :) --Camembert


 * Sorry, Camembert, did you say the headers are in compliance now? Some of the middle headers are still treble ===XXX=== ones and seem oversized, if I am not mistaken. --Dieter Simon 23:15, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * I also think the ==xxx== creates text in a font size that is alarmingly large. The ===xxx=== font size does seem more appropriate.   I'll look over at Manual of Style and see what the thoughts are in terms of style. I'm wondering if a smaller font size can be associated with ==xx==? - Bevo 16:09, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * It's not just a matter of font. Each section is supposed to start at ==. If External links is used with ===, that means that it's part of another section (unless it's the only section there, or everything else is also at that level and below). The font size in an unfortunate, side-effect when there isn't much text in the article, but it is not noticeable otherwise. I assume it is for the font size reason that sections do not begin with = instead of ==. Dori | Talk 16:21, Dec 14, 2003 (UTC)


 * It's not font size, which can be fixed with a style sheet anyway. The reason you're not supposed to use = to mark up section headings is that that's what the article title is marked with; sections within the article should thus be marked with ==, the next level down. &mdash;Paul A 05:43, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Is there anything I can do to get the font size employed for top-level headings to display in a smaller size? There is mention above to the "Wikipedia-wide stylesheet". Is that something I can define or modify? - Bevo 20:18, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * Hi, I recommend checking your web browser to see whether you can change the font size that you view, to display in some smaller size. Most ordinary (graphical) browsers have such an option in their menus.  It's a handy feature for several occasions; sooner or later you're bound to surf into pages with 'too large' or 'too small' fonts here and there on the web. --Wernher 02:54, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * Thanks, but it's not a matter of what font sizes are actually displayed, but more a matter of what font sizes are used for one aspect of the article, for example, the article's title, relative to the size of the article's section headings.  Right now, I don't see too much difference in the font size used by both of these.  I wish there were more contrast (by making the top-level section headings display in a smaller font).  - Bevo 03:10, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * OK, now I understand what you meant. I have noticed it for my choice of font display size in that "==" and "===" sizes display more-or-less identically, which suggests to me that some other mode of contrast than size could be handy (but then one risks cluttering things up, I guess...).  Some contributors seem to use the following, though: "==" sections have one empty line before the text, while "===" (sub)sections don't.  --Wernher 09:39, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Style for words as words
Is this where I file a protest about Wikipedia's style of italicizing words referenced within a text. I realize that single quotes are used in marking up Wikipedia, but my keyboard knows as well as my computer does that a double quote is a separate thing entirely. And it is standard in written English to use double quotes around particular words that are being reference in a text. Itals are generally reserved for titles and foreign words and the like. The ital practice is somewhat jarring. Most standard guide to English style prefers the latter of these two:

The word panorama derives from the word panning. The word "panorama" derives from the word "panning."

Is there a technical reason for this standard? jengod 21:13, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Picture Alignment
For picture alignment in article, Docu said that for pictures where the person is facing right, they should be left aligned. I totally disagree. To me, regardless of which way the person is facing, the picture should be right aligned. So let me make a proposal - that we horizontally invert pictures where the person is facing the to the right (so that they are now facing left) and we put them on the right side of the article. Does that sound good? &rarr;Raul654 09:17, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC)


 * I'd prefer if the photos are not edited too much. Next thing, some may want to change the background to match one of the stylesheets. Maybe we should simply drop the part on alignment. -- User:Docu


 * I'd prefer dropping the part on alignment. It makes more sense for a picture at the very top of the article to be on the right--has to do with people reading from left to right--but I don't feel that it's something we need to mandate. Certainly don't want to mandate its position by its content.  I understand that the human eye is drawn subconsiously in the direction of a person or animal's gaze, but I wouldn't want to have to put all the right-facing dog breed tables on the left side of the articles while the others are on the right.  And I really don't like the idea of flipping photos; this distorts reality in some way that we might not even be able to anticipate (e.g., someone doing a study of how often photos are taken of people facing the right rather than the left--I dunno--)  Elf | Talk 16:01, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Ok, let's compromise on the wording. We agree that pictures where the person is facing left or out (into the camera) should be right aligned. So let's put that in. Also, we need to decide how to do articles with multiple pictures. Library of Congress and Dormitory gave me lots of problems in this regard. &rarr;Raul654 17:50, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't agree with a policy of always right-aligning pictures. The option to use a variety of alignment of images is used effectively in many articles.  Sometimes I've used borders to get a pleasing text wrap. - Bevo 18:22, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't think I said that I agree with requiring left-facing photos to be right aligned. I said I understood why that's appealing. I *did* say that I don't think we should mandate the alignment of images based on their content. If a particular project wants to mandate that a certain thing always goes right/left at the top of the article (again, like dog projects have the dog breed table on the right), that's fine, but otherwise I disagree with mandating any alignment. Elf | Talk 19:09, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Always right-aligning=boring, boring, boring. (To me anyway.) Mirror imaging the pictures is kind of dishonest too (which side was Lincoln's big wart on?). Although I think left-aligned pictures shouldn't be at the top; the first line of the article should be left-justified. - Hephaestos|&#167; 19:12, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'd say this is a judgment call. A lot depends on the flow of paragraphs around the picture; my chief concern, esp. with a left-aligned picture, is that the picture doesn't leave a line of text extending beneath it; that affects readability. OTOH, left alignment makes a quite nice effect for example on Harrowing of Hell, where the picture is an old manuscript illustration. Smerdis of Tlön 20:28, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Headings
The MoS says:


 * Note that when ==This is a heading== is used, no blank line under the headline is needed. Extra blank lines should be removed, since formatting is an issue for the Wikipedia style sheet, not the way you write your article.

I think it ought to say that a blank line should be under the heading. There is a difference between this:

Like this
blah blah

and this:

Like this
blah blah.

In lots of articles I've been inserting the blank line. I think it looks distinctly better that way. The MoS seems to be saying it makes no difference! That is absurd! Michael Hardy 23:53, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * The point is that the amount of space under a Section Heading is controllable through Style Sheets. Admittedly the system for doing this appears to be still in development, but we don't want to have to trawl through thousands of articles removing extraneous blank space when the option arrives. in the meantime, there is a problem with allowing a blank line under a Section Heading: if there is an invisible space (ie the line is actually not empty) this causes a huge gap

Like this

 * which looks totally bogus. HTH HAND. --Phil | Talk 08:57, Mar 22, 2004 (UTC)

Make the header stand out more in the edit box
I would prefer a blank line in the wikitext between header and section text, to make the header stand out more in the edit box.--Patrick 12:53, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Not wishing to be overly sarcastic but how much more could you make it stand out than putting Equals Signs around it, bearing in mind you're restricted to plain text? The point is not so much what it looks like in the edit box (although there is a certain minimal requirement) as what it looks like in the resulting article. --Phil | Talk 14:40, Mar 22, 2004 (UTC)


 * If there is a trade-off between the two, that makes sense; if a convenient lay-out in the edit box does not badly affect the result, the remark is not to the point.--Patrick 16:20, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * I see your point. I've tried to get used to finding the sections just by ==xxx== demarcation, but sometimes I have to look hard to spot them. I've turned on the option to edit by right-clicking section headings, and that helps in many instances (that's what I did just now to edit this section) . - Bevo 14:47, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * I prefer to add an extra line after a heading, regardless of what the MoS says. It looks better on the page that the user sees and it makes it easier to locate the sections in the edit box. An observation: when you use the "Post Comment" link on a talk page and include a subject, it automatically includes a space after the heading. Bkonrad | Talk 15:00, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * I've found that it depends upon the particular article as to whether it is more pleasing to display a blank line below a section heading. And, I usually prefer one style in the sections in the article (blank lines follow section heading) and another in the sections in the Talk: page associated with the article (no blank line following the section heading). - Bevo 15:21, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree with Brevo. I'll amend my previous statement to say that I generaly prefer to include a space after the heading. There are situations where no space is better, such as some templates where links to sub-articles appear after a heading. Bkonrad | Talk 15:58, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Bold
The use of triple single quotes is only mentioned in passing in the discussion of headings. Similarly with italics. Would be good to have the techniques explicated here. ;Bear 06:31, 2004 Apr 6 (UTC)

Heading style and spaces
I really think headings should be capitalized, except for words like "and" or "the", of course.

In fact, the Wikipedia system often does it, not citing countless authoritative newspapers or books (seriously, pretty much all publications I can think of use capitalized headings). Even this page is titled Manual of Style

Does everyone agree with current guidelines?

Furthermore, headings should be spaced more for following paragraphs, but I guess this is more of a Wiki style issue. Where or whom should I petition for this?

Regards, Aside 19:55, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I think headings should always be given an extra space before the first sentence, as in:

== Overview == Tryptophan is an amino acid...


 * rather than

== Overview == Tryptophan is an amino acid...


 * I think it's much clearer in the wikisource. Plus, using spaces or not appears to produce the same HTML, so I don't see how this could be a formatting issue for the wiki stylesheet (as the MoS indicates).
 * This is fine unless that empty line is not in fact empty (i.e. someone includes spaces in it) in which case a huge dead space opens up under the Heading and looks really gross. IMNSHO it's better to avoid the possiblity by closing up the space so that a paragraph starts directly under the Heading line. FWIW it is better to have an empty line before the Heading particularly if it is immediately preceded by a list, because the list formatting can spill over and screw up the Heading. HTH HAND --Phil | Talk 16:59, Jul 7, 2004 (UTC)


 * If someone includes a space at the start of the "blank" line, thereby introducing some ugly rendering, then some other user could simply come along and remove the space. IMO, that's not a big problem, and I don't think it's a good reason for excluding the space following the heading. My point is that leaving a space after (and before, as you suggest) the heading makes for wikitext whose sections are more readily identifiable. Without the space, headings tend to get lost in the section text, and they become more difficult to identify. This discussion should probably be continued over at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (headings). --Diberri | Talk 21:06, Jul 7, 2004 (UTC)


 * FWIW, after using Wikipedia for some time now, I'm partial to using capital letters only for the first letter in heading titles, and lowercase letters subsequently (except for proper nouns, of course). However, when I first came to WP, my original thought was that headings should be styled as you suggest above (i.e. first letter of each word capitalized except for prepositions, etc). --Diberri | Talk 15:48, Jul 7, 2004 (UTC)

Bold
As a student, I have been taught to highlight keywords while writing my answers. I want to know if it is an acceptable practice to highlight (bolden) keywords (including links) so that at a glance, a reader knows the major points of that heading. &#x00b6; nichalp 20:55, Jul 11, 2004 (UTC)
 * Please don't do that. Jamesday 21:46, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * You haven't given a reason why not. &#x00b6; nichalp 20:48, Jul 12, 2004 (UTC)


 * From Manual of Style: "Sometimes it is useful to have an explicit cross-reference in the text, for example, when a long section of text has been moved somewhere else, or there is a major article on a subtopic. In these cases, make the link bold so that its significance is easier to recognize."
 * It seemes that it is acceptable to bold text occasionally in long articles to highlight something of great importance. But it would be prudent to exercise discretion and not do this too often.
 * Acegikmo1 00:59, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * True, I'll have to use discretion, else the entire reason of using bold text would be lost. Now say for example I am writing a history sub heading (6-8 lines) and I want to highlight the major rulers of that era. Can I bolden the dynasties? &#x00b6; nichalp 20:48, Jul 12, 2004 (UTC)

In some articles, like railway stations, (e.g. Spencer Street Station), previous and alternative names of the station are bolded in the text. Is that an acceptable style or not? TPK 11:59, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * The rule of thumbs seems to be to embolden all names which should also exist as redirects to the article. See Timur for an example. Zocky 13:36, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Certainly in articles about books, it seems to be common and acceptable practice to embolden character names on first mention, particularly if there is no corresponding article. --Phil | Talk 13:10, Jul 12, 2004 (UTC)

Italics or quotation marks
O.K., a bit off topic, but you three seem to know your stuff: Where is it most clearly spelled out in these pages when to italicize and when to use quotes? Most articles bounce back and forth between the two, and the M.O.S. isn't too "specific"/specific on the subject. My impression was that italics are to be used here in many situations where one would elsewhere use quotes. Thanks.Sfahey 04:17, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * That doesn't have its own section. You need to look up the item in question, such as "book titles". Maurreen 18:41, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I found that info. How 'bout to show you mean a word ironically, as in: "It took you only four hours to get across the Triboro Bridge?" Sfahey 23:26, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't think we have a style on that, so use whatever you like. Maurreen 04:21, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

'''I'm not sure. I'm finland and not good enlish.'''