Jump to content

Topic on Talk:Design/Typography

"If a word or phrase is italicized it does not also need bolding"

6
Nemo bis (talkcontribs)

What is this sentence talking about?

Jorm (WMF) (talkcontribs)

It means you do not need two forms of emphasis. Italic is one; bold is another; bold italic is two emphasisesessesss.

Nemo bis (talkcontribs)

But where? This is surely false in Wikipedia articles, so if you attempted to proclaim it as the 11th commandment you failed.

Quiddity (talkcontribs)

I would assume that means "In the interface and documentation" only - because the article content is a different kettle of fish - but you have a good (implied but unstated) point about those 2 areas being often-distinct, and this project's description currently not clarifying that.

I think that "Shift & emphasis" is the only section on the page that requires amendment, so I'll boldly add that now.

Vibhabamba (talkcontribs)

It means that one shift is sufficient for emphasis, we don't need to bold & italicize text. Two shifts create noise which hinders from the reading experience. Vibhabamba (talk) 22:45, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Quiddity (talkcontribs)

Just to clarify, the confusion was because: within English Wikipedia articles (and possibly/probably elsewhere), we do need and intend to use bold&italic at the same time, eg in en:Macbeth the the first word is italic because it's a title of an artwork, but is also bold because it's the article topic. (all per en:MOS:TEXT guidelines)

I think we all agree that this is fine, and the clarifications in this project-page were purely for UI and documentation elements, as per my edit. HTH.

Reply to ""If a word or phrase is italicized it does not also need bolding""