Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Titles of works/Titles/Archive 4

Italics for named weapons
Reading this Italics/Major works#Paintings, sculptures and other works of visual art with a title rather than a name, are swords with a name included in this section? For example Excalibur and Thuận Thiên (sword)? --Gonnym (talk) 10:34, 4 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Based on a visual inspection of the hits at at Google Books, Excalibur is not italicized in running text. Doremo (talk) 11:55, 4 February 2020 (UTC)


 * One way to look at the distinction is that a sword or building has a practical use, whereas works of art exist for their own sake. Also, works of art are often named after common objects, e.g. The Swing, so italicization alerts us to the fact that we're talking about the work and not the common subject. Likewise, most people's names are distinguished by convention from common objects with a capital letter, e.g. "Daisy" vs. daisy. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 15:48, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * And other non-art objects are not italicized (with very few exceptions, like ships and spacecraft). E.g., many manor houses have names, as do various individual racecars, famous fossils, famous gems, even pieces of famous furniture in the White House and Buckingham Palace, etc., etc., etc.  The exceptions, like for ships, are highly conventionalized and unmistakable, not iffy maybes.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:31, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

MOS:ITALICWEBSITE update for WP:CITALICSRFC
This MOS:ITALICWEBSITE section's blanket statements, which had not been updated since WP:CITALICSRFC and other discussions, have been causing repeated conflict and rehash of the same stuff over and over again. Three recent examples: And I've seen many others.
 * Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 74
 * User talk:Citation bot/Archive 24
 * User talk:AManWithNoPlan

That RfC result and the related citation template documentation needs to be summarized here in a footnote, so I have done this. It was ironic that this section has long had a shortcut of MOS:ITALICWEBCITE without actually addressing cite italics of websites at all. No wonder disputation about this has been recurrent despite being RfC-resolved. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:37, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Religious Texts
I have retitled the Scriptures section Religious texts, which is more appropriate. The section already uses examples of religious texts that are not scriptures (e.g. Talmud), the page already links to Religious Text, etc. Gershonmk (talk) 02:28, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

"MOS:Naming convention" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect MOS:Naming convention. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 3 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 21:03, 3 April 2021 (UTC)