This Forum has been archivedVisit the new Forums
|Forums: War Room → Use of italics in piped links|
|This discussion is closed. The result of this discussion was:|
Style no. 1 as explained in the proposal is preferred.
|Please do not edit this discussion.|
This issue is something that is rather inconsistently used across the wiki, and at times within the same article, but there doesn't seem to be a policy or guideline for how this should be used.
At the moment, italicizing a piped link is performed in two ways:
- [[Article name|''Displayed text'']]
- ''[[Article name|Displayed text]]''
Obviously, the output of both formats is the same, but I would like to propose that we change this to use just the second one, adding the use of this format into the Manual of Style. The first is inconsistent with how we would italicize a normal link (that is, placing the
'' on the outside of the link), and also looks, in my opinion, rather messy in source mode, particularly when the link is placed within a block of writing. Having a consistent format used on all articles, rather than two different formats that are used at random, will I believe make the articles look much more professional. HAMMEROFTHOR 13:45, August 16, 2012 (UTC)
- I'm all for consistency, and I don't care very much which format we choose, but I'd like to point out that format #2 won't exactly confer consistency, because there are links which will need to be presented with format #1. Namely, articles in which only a portion of its title contains italicized words: Team Avatar (Legend of Korra) ([[Team Avatar (Legend of Korra)|Team Avatar (''Legend of Korra'')]]). For this, I favor #1 a little more. ― Thailog 15:44, August 16, 2012 (UTC)
- I support #1 a little more because it looks neater and, in my opinion, seems to make more sense. However, Thailog brings up a good point with the partial italicized examples. We could use #1 for everything except for having exceptions when it's only part of the link, but if we're going for 100% consistency, we have to go with #2. --AvatarRokus Ghost (Message me • Read my fanon) 16:08, August 16, 2012 (UTC)
- Definitely number 2 (with the exception of cases as the ones noted by Thailog). 22:12, August 18, 2012 (UTC)
- That's why I changed all those I could find with format #2 to #1. We can't really say that #2 would be consistent with all other italicized links because they have the wikimarks on the outside. Those are not piped links, so they couldn't have the italics on the inside anyway. However, when it comes to pipe links, we have two formats: those with the all the text italicized, and those with only some parts of it. If we're going to be consistent, then #1 is the way to go, regardless of how non-piped links are italicized. That way, all piped links would have the italics on the inside. ― Thailog 12:17, August 20, 2012 (UTC)
Links for which only part of the text needs to italicized are not that common, and having the italics on the outside would be a consistent format for all links, regardless of them being piped or not, which only a few exceptions. I don't see how having two formats, one for non-piped links and another for piped links, promotes consistency. If we use format #2, we have a fully consistent format for all links, which is only broken when it is necessary to do so. HAMMEROFTHOR 13:06, August 20, 2012 (UTC)
In response to HoT: firstly, I thought this was a forum on the consistency of italics within piped links, and secondly, with #1, you would achieve 100% consistency with piped links (i.e
[[Article name|''Displayed text'']] ), while with #2 you would achieve 100% consistency with non-piped links (i.e
''[[Article name]]'' ). They may be similar, but piped and non-piped are not and do not necessarily need to be related. This is the case with the Wikipedia MoS, and should be the case here. They are not the same, and it would be fallacious to treat them as such when they are both separate cases, which can have two separate styles of italics to achieve consistency within their sub-fields. KettleMeetPot • wall 13:38, August 20, 2012 (UTC)
- My point exactly. And there's no such thing as a "fully consistent format for all links" when it doesn't apply to all links. Exceptions by definition breed inconsistency. ― Thailog 13:41, August 20, 2012 (UTC)
- @KMP - this is a forum about the use of italics in piped links, but consistency with how italics are used for other links should still be considered. The two are not exclusive issues. Having one format for some links, and another format for others, is not consistent.
- @Thailog - "Exceptions by definition breeds inconsistency" - isn't your own argument saying that we should make exceptions for piped links against how italics are used for "normal" links. We may not be able to achieve full consistency, but if we choose #2 we have the greatest consistency we can achieve, and only break that consistency when it is absolutely necessary to do so. HAMMEROFTHOR 14:00, August 20, 2012 (UTC)
- "Having one format for some links, and another format for others, is not consistent"
- That's the case with either format.
- "isn't your own argument saying that we should make exceptions for piped links against how italics are used for "normal" links"
- No, because piped links are themselves exceptions to "normal" links. For the latter we put the italic marks on the outside because we have no choice, but with pipe links that's no longer the case. Piped links aren't constrained by the same limitations as normal links. So, claiming that we should put the italic marks on the outside of piped links just because that's how we do it on non-piped links is flawed logic. ― Thailog 14:24, August 20, 2012 (UTC)
- "Having one format for some links, and another format for others, is not consistent"
- But if we pick #2, we can achieve the greatest consistency across all links. There will be exceptions, but exceptions that only occur because it is necessary to do so. Just because piped links are exceptions to normal links, and just because they are not constrained by having to have the italics on the outside, doesn't mean we should use a different format. I'm not saying we should put the italics on the outside just because that is how it is done on normals links; I'm saying that because that is the format used, we should aim towards using a format that is as consistent with this format as we can make it. The greater level of consistency we can achieve, the easier it will be for people to understand. HAMMEROFTHOR 14:42, August 20, 2012 (UTC)
You talk about consistency by lumping every single type of link together, as if they should all be considered the same, and should all be treated the same (your "consistent" solution). However, linking is divided into two subgroups (piped and non-piped) for a reason; they are both functionally, by definition, and by direct usage different, though the purposes they are used for are similar. You've said yourself that a blanket rule for all links won't work; as Thailog said, exceptions breed inconsistency.
But, we've given you a 100% consistent solution with no exceptions, which solves the problem for each of the two separate subgroups - i.e #1 for piped and #2 for non-piped - which is far better than a sorta-kinda-maybe consistent solution that attempts to carpet bomb links as a whole, yet still leaves holes. How will that be hard for people to understand, when two definitions which leave no gaps are opposed to one definition that does? KettleMeetPot • wall 07:59, August 21, 2012 (UTC)
Having only speed-read through this forum, I think that the italics look best if done in way number 2. I understand that there are times where way number 1 has to be used for purposes already explained. In my opinion, I think italics method number 1 should only be used if the way the link is meant to be shown requires it, with italics method number 2 being the default way. Omnibender - Talk - Contributions 18:41, August 26, 2012 (UTC)
- Per Thailog and Kettle. The only significant difference I see to choose one or the other is consistency, and if #1 is consistent, I support that option. It's easier to have consistency between the same type of links than having exceptions for italicized piped links. Dcasawang1 • wall 18:48, September 4, 2012 (UTC)
Would this policy also extend itself to bolded links? For example, looking at the links in this list of fauna, you'll find most of them use #1 formatting (i.e.
[[Lion turtle (species)|'''Lion turtle''']]). GhostUser (wall • contribs) 21:29, September 9, 2012 (UTC)
To clarify, those who vote in support will be advocating the use of:
''[[Article name|Displayed text]]''for all piped links. (#2, per OP)
All those who oppose will be supporting the use of:
[[Article name|''Displayed text'']]for all piped links. (#1, per OP)
- Support — Per my reasoning above. HAMMEROFTHOR 19:05, September 6, 2012 (UTC)
- Support — Per HoT Gods Rule! Not Spirits 23:23, September 6, 2012 (UTC)
- Support — Easier to read and keep up with. 13:08, September 8, 2012 (UTC)
- Support — GhostUser (wall • contribs) 18:01, September 11, 2012 (UTC)
- Support — Per HoT. 22:04, September 14, 2012 (UTC)
- Support — Random Ranaun (Talk to me!) 14:56, September 15, 2012 (UTC)
- Neutral — As I mentioned above, I find that using the italics outside the brackets of the link to be more aesthetically pleasing when looking at the article in source mode. However, I see the argument for the other use of italics, the cases where it could be used. I would vote support, but that would entail using it for all piped links, and I feel that way 1 should be used when necessary, not by standard. Choosing to use italics way 1 would result in going around the wiki and changing that, something I'm not sure can be made with a bot (though I'm probably wrong). Omnibender - Talk - Contributions 02:22, September 7, 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose — Per my reasons above. KettleMeetPot • wall 09:35, September 6, 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose — Per my comments above. There are two types of links: piped and non-piped. Non-piped links can have the italics marks on the outside or on the inside of the second parameter. Some links need to have the italics on the inside because some articles' titles have only a few words that need to be italicized. So, the only way to have consistency within non-piped links is by putting the italics on the inside (format #1) on all occasions. Just because piped links have the marks on the outside (because there's no other place to put them), it doesn't mean that non-piped links absolutely must have them there as well. ― Thailog 15:34, September 6, 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose — Per Thailog. Keeping the itallicization inside the link will be a cleaner format when applied across all pages. --AvatarRokus Ghost (Message me • Read my fanon) 18:53, September 6, 2012 (UTC)
- Voltorb Opposes! —
- Oppose — Per my comment above. Dcasawang1 • wall 21:38, September 9, 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose — Per Thailog. Lia(talk) 08:39, September 10, 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose — Although I never minded using either format, as Thailog said above, using the first format would be more consistent. The Ultimate Waterbender 18:12, September 11, 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose — Really, this isn't something that should matter, and because of that, I'm against having to make changes for something this trivial. The 888th Avatar (talk) 23:58, September 15, 2012 (UTC)