Wiktionary:Votes/2007-10/style for mentioned terms
Appearance
Style for mentioned terms
[edit]- Voting on: the default style to use for mentioning Latin (roman) script terms and phrases (those written with the English alphabet or one very similar) within running text, e.g. in ===Etymology=== and ====Usage notes====. The decision will be incorporated into the '.mention-Latn' class of MediaWiki:Common.css, used by
{{term}}
. Each reader can override the default using WT:PREFS or WT:CUSTOM.- This vote will not affect list sections like ====Synonyms==== and ====Related terms====.
- This vote will not affect transliterations.
- This vote will not affect “form-of” definitions.
- This vote will not affect mentions of terms in languages like Russian or Chinese, which use other scripts and have their own considerations.
- Vote ends: 10 November 2007 23:59 UTC
- Vote started: 11 October 2007 23:59 UTC
- Vote created: Rod (A. Smith) 04:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- Discussion:
- Wiktionary:Votes/2007-08/style for mentioned terms: straw poll with weak support for italic mentions
- Wiktionary:Votes/2006-12/form-of style: vote chose bold as the default style for mentions in “form of” definitions
- draft policy Wiktionary:Etymology: As of 2007-June-21, it suggested italics for Latin script mentions in etymologies.
- WT:BP#Consistent format for mentioned terms
- Template talk:term
The default, reader-overridable style for Latin (roman) script mentions in running text should be bold
[edit]- E.g.: mention word for readers who have no custom preference
- Support — [ ric | opiaterein ] — 01:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC) if we're going to have a default, I think this should be bold, because after all, it's important and should be noticeable.
- Support DAVilla 03:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- Support EncycloPetey 15:34, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
The default, reader-overridable style for Latin (roman) script mentions in running text should be italics
[edit]- E.g. mention word for readers who have no custom preference
- Support Visviva 00:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC) Let's do this thing.
- Support DCDuring 01:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC) No objection
- Support Circeus 01:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC) I like it.
- Support Connel MacKenzie 01:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- Support DAVilla 03:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC) My strong preferance, but either will do. DAVilla 03:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- Support \Mike 08:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- Support Williamsayers79 07:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- Support Tohru 03:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- Support — Beobach972 03:41, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
- Support H. (talk) 18:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC) Following long-standing typographic traditions.
- Support. bd2412 T 17:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- Support —SaltmarshTalk 08:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support — As has already been pointed out, this is the convention in lexicography. — Paul G 08:36, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support Rhanyeia♥♫ 15:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Oppose: There should be no default style for Latin (roman) script mentions in running text
[edit]Abstain
[edit]- Abstain Widsith 10:08, 13 October 2007 (UTC) Don't really mind: quite like both.
Decision
[edit]- Second option (italics) passes 14-2-1. DAVilla 22:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC)