Straw-polling on: the default style to use for mentioning Latin script terms and phrases (terms and phrases written with the English alphabet or one very similar) within running text (e.g. in ===Etymology=== and ====Usage notes====, but not in list sections like ====Synonyms====, ====Antonyms====, and ====Related terms====); this straw poll is not about transliterations, nor does it apply to terms in languages like Russian, Hebrew, Greek, or Chinese, which use other scripts and have their own considerations
The draft template {{term}} is meant to help format mentioned terms and phrases. {{term}} uses a default style for Latin script (a.k.a. “Roman script”) mentions of terms and phrases and allows each reader to override the default with a custom style. The draft Wiktionary:Etymology suggests to use italics for Latin script mentions in etymologies, but Wiktionary:Votes/2006-12/form-of style concluded that the default style for mentions in “form of” definitions should be bold while allowing each reader to override that with a custom style.
This straw poll will determine the preliminary preference for the default, reader-overridable style for Latin script mentions within running text (e.g. within ===Etymology=== and ====Usage notes==== sections). The result will be incorporated into the '.mention' class of MediaWiki:Common.css, which is used by the unofficial template {{term}}. If necessary, a '.use-with-mention .mention' class will be added to preserve the “form-of” default chosen in Wiktionary:Votes/2006-12/form-of style. No decision reached in this straw poll will be made into formal policy without a subsequent official vote.
Note: “Latin script” refers to the Latin alphabet, i.e. the script that Unicode and ISO call “Latin script”. It is also called “Roman script” and is not restricted to the Latin language, although that language is written in that script. Rod (A. Smith) 15:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
E.g. mention word for readers who have no custom preference
SupportDAVilla 08:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC) understanding that this would not override form-of bolding. However, there are also time when it makes sense to put words in quotation marks, so I think we might need a second option, maybe for terms that are not linked? There have got to be a million examples out there. (By the way, it might be better to say "Roman script" to avoid the confusion with Latin as a language.) DAVilla08:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there is a potential for confusion between “Latin script” and “Latin language”, but there is at least as much potential for confusion between “Roman script” and “Roman font”. I have added a clarifying note above and will be sure to list both names in future discussions. Rod (A. Smith) 15:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SupportH. (talk) 15:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC) This is the typographical convention. I think bold jumps into the eye too much. The form of situation is different: there the use is in italics, to make clear that it is not a normal definition, and the word in question is bold to front it even more.[reply]
You do understand that we're not talking about just definitions; we're also considering the etymology section, where the section is a jumble of language names, transcriptions, translations, and etymons. --EncycloPetey01:45, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am very aware of that, and after seeing what {{term}} was doing the last days, I am even more convinced: bold looks terrible there. It is in its place in the use-mention distinction, since that is a special case, which deserves special formatting, to separate it from normal definitions. H. (talk) 11:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
AbstainRod (A. Smith) 05:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC) I would normally prefer italics, but consistency with the “form of” vote sways me toward bold. Either would be fine with me so long as readers can override that default and so long as it is easy to change the default at some later date. {{term}} satisfies both those conditions, so I will be happy with either choice. Rod (A. Smith) 05:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
AbstainConnel MacKenzie 16:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC) My understanding is that there is to be a WT:PREF either way. While I find the "small and hard to read" argument very compelling, the "proper" italics have grown on me over the years for other reasons. In particular, when we mention foreign language terms, even if we are completely consistent about using bold instead of italics, we could cause some confusion (i.e. "but Wiktionary recommends I use this term without italics.") As long as we are consistent throughout the entire dictionary and have some "front matter" that explains why, I think the bold is better than italics. But I'm less convinced than I used to be. --Connel MacKenzie16:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With 2 voters favoring bold, 5 favoring italics, and 4 abstaining, the default, reader-overridable style for Latin script mentions in running text will be italics while demonstrating {{term}}. Rod (A. Smith) 18:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how I would have tallied this one. If it were more than a straw poll, it would have been improperly structured since there was no option for dissension, as with Thecurran's position. In the past (though no longer) I had set up Abstain for opposition, but that wouldn't be fair with this poll. Since the first two abstensions would have counted for either option under approval voting, italics was essentially 7-3-1 and bold 4-6-1 according to comments, and not reflected by the vote structure.
These comments should be preserved, but I'm not sure if this should be archived on the voting page. Please consider noting the closure of this vote in the BP discussion. DAVilla17:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support EncycloPetey 02:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Abstain Rod (A. Smith) 05:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC) I would normally prefer italics, but consistency with the “form of” vote sways me toward bold. Either would be fine with me so long as readers can override that default and so long as it is easy to change the default at some later date. 