This page falls within the scope of theWikipedia:Manual of Style, a collaborative effort focused on enhancing clarity, consistency, and cohesiveness across theManual of Style (MoS) guidelines by addressing inconsistencies, refining language, and integrating guidance effectively.Manual of StyleWikipedia:WikiProject Manual of StyleTemplate:WikiProject Manual of StyleManual of Style
This page may fall under thecontentious topics procedure and be given additional attention, as it may be closely associated to thearticle titles policy andcapitalisation. Both areas are subjects of debate. Contributors are urged to review theawareness criteria carefully and exercise caution when editing.
I propose that whatever is passing for usage of MOS in regards to redirects and also the fairly common or more often than that practice of bolding names be rectified. In particular I would like this to be applicable in all articles which involve crime. Additionally this new policy could say that the perpetrator(s) name(s) would be used in a limited fashion.This policy would not bewilder or confuse those looking for information related to the incidents. There are other ways to write about or publish information on Wikipedia including things like footnotes. If this policy is adopted here then I would think it is unnecessary to go to other Wikipedia message boards. If it is advisable to include other talk pages to accomplish making a new policy, that would be something to be done. I think here is a fine place to begin. I would add we should be considering the feelings of victims' families in these instances. In my view it is never appropriate to draw undue attention or bold said names. In the 2025 incident in Manhattan where a Blackstone executive was killed, I would agree that there could be more coverage of her career or accomplishments.Efficacity (talk)22:33, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Efficacity my apologies, but I read this through several times and I have very little idea what you are concerned about or what you want to change. Bolding the victim's name in the lead paragraph of a crime article because their name redirects to said crime article? This may be something you find particularly insensitive, unfortunately, and I'm not sure it's a commonly understood sentiment.
I can only really parse the last sentence, and want to make it clear that we're an encyclopedia,not a memorial service. That should be left to the affected communities. Our job is the same on those articles as on any other.Remsense 🌈 论22:53, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Remsense: I believe your reading of it was correct. To distill it down, @Efficacity is proposing a change toMOS:BOLDREDIRECT when it involves the perpetrator(s) and victim(s) of mass shooting events. For example for an article on a mass shooting, if the shooter's name is a redirect to the crime article, the name wouldnot be bolded at the first instance (lead or section) as it would normally be per BOLDREDIRECT.ButlerBlog (talk)14:48, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's a potential issue here, where, on the one hand, MOS calls for putting redirect names in bold font. Overall, that's reasonable as a navigational aid. But, on the other hand, there can be situations where the names of perpetrators or victims are redirects to a page about the crime, and it can seem a bit odd for their names to appear in bold font at the target page. In some cases, there may be friction between the formatting guideline, andWP:BLP (orWP:BDP), because the font draws attention to the names, and readers who did not arrive at the page via the redirect might understandably wonder why we are highlighting those names. I don't know, but perhaps there could be a way for this guideline to allow editors more flexibility in choosing not to highlight sensitive names. --Tryptofish (talk)22:27, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Which names are "sensitive" though, and how to decide that? Generally, the current policy (bold name when there's a redirect) is clear and straightforward, so I would be very hesitant about changing it.Gawaon (talk)07:36, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you are one person, but setting aside whether or not there are more of us than of you for now... I could ask you what you mean by very hesitant. If something is broken, in disrepair, doesn't function, it goes out the window. Maybe I can get you to not waffle by telling you precisely what is meant by sensitive. We are referencing mostly criminal cases, so far that's all we are talking about.Efficacity (talk)08:18, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So you are saying the names of criminals shouldn't be put in bold because they are criminal? ButHitler andStalin have their names in bold too, and nobody seems to mind that. If you think having your name in bold in Wikipedia is an honour, rest assured: it is not.Gawaon (talk)10:30, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hitler and Stalin has their names in bold because they have articles about them, obviously. What we're talking about here is a perpetrator who isn't notable enough to have his own article, but has his own section in a different article, and that section is a redirect target. The section is obviously about the perpetrator, the reader doesn't have to hunt around for the name, there's no reason to boldface it.
He's also saying that applies to victims. In the case of the discussion linked two sections above, victim names are all over the article and yet one or two in the middle are bolded, because that's where the redirect target goes. This violatesWP:PLA for someone reading the article who didn't arrive there by the redirect, because the name has already appeared in the article before, so there's no need to boldface it. There's also aWP:BDP issue concerning sensitivity; if the victim was your family member, how would you feel about their name being highlighted in the middle of an article that isn't about your relative? ~Anachronist(talk)15:34, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
name being highlighted in the middle of an article that isn't about [them] But that's just it, itis the only place they're going to be discussed on Wikipedia.Hitler and Stalin has their names in bold because they have articles about them, obviously No, it's because ofMOS:TEXT#TITLE. TheviolatesWP:PLA still has me at a loss, as PLA (andWP:RPLA) iswhy we bold targets for redirects perMOS:BOLDREDIRECT. —Locke Cole •t •c15:41, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's just it. The names are all over the article. This has been explained over and over. These terms aren't notable article topics. If you can't understand why running across a boldface term in the middle of an article violates the principle of least astonishment when that term is discussed earlier in the article,and you can't understand that BOLDREDIRECT isn't a mandatory rule to follow blindly, wellWP:IDHT keeps coming to mind. ~Anachronist(talk)15:52, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When it's at the beginning of a section to which the redirect points, well, that's exactly what's described inWP:BOLDREDIRECT:Terms which redirect to an articleor section are commonly bolded when they appear in the first couple of paragraphs of the lead section,or at the beginning of another section. It doesn't add "only if the term wasn't mentioned earlier" and there is nothing to imply that that would be the case.
WP:RASTONISH states:"inbound redirects" ... should be mentioned in the first couple of paragraphs of the articleor section to which the redirect goes. If one wanted to wikilawyer it, the considering that is followed withIt will often be appropriate to put the redirected term in bold at its first occurrence in the target, noting thatoften will be appropriate clearly leaves room forisn'talways thefirst occurrence.
Your (Anachronist) argument is reasonable, but Lock Cole's position seems to be based on a clear reading that (to me, at least) appears more in line with what the style guide actually says. So you disagree - so what? That's the point of discussion - to flesh that out and arrive at a consensus view of the intent of the guide. But given the fact that Locke Cole isn't the only party that sees it this way, I think that suggesting IDHT seems obtuse.ButlerBlog (talk)17:22, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I "trotted out" IDHT deliberately because,in the context of the article linked in the discussions above, what's repeatedly ignored with hand-waving replies is the elephant in the room: BOLDREDIRECT, clearly reading as currently worded, isn't prescriptive. It doesn't even make a recommendation, it merely states what is "commonly" done, which is as weak as "often".
And I think it should remain that way. Applying boldface should be considered on a case by case basis. The guideline says it's permissible, a common practice, but isn't mandatory. And that's how it should be.
This particular discussion, however, involves clarifying the guideline with respect to articles about crime. For that, I don't think we need to change anything. Again, case by case basis. My position is that a section dedicated to a perpetratorcan have his name bolded if it's the target of a redirect, but doesn'thave to because clearly if you're following the redirect, and you land on the section about the topic, you aren't surprised if nothing is bolded because the section is about the redirect topic. Someone else reading the article without being directed to it also isn't surprised that the perpetrator's name not bolded. Therefore, the principle of least astonishment doesn't apply and is irrelevant if the bolding isn't there. It can be present, or not, nobody would notice or care.
Where I objected to bolding in that article is where the redirect is a victim's name but the target of the redirect is to a section about the perpetrator. The victim isn't the topic, it's astonishing to a reader who wasn't redirected there to see the victim's name all over the place and then suddenly in boldface in the middle of a section that isn't even about the victim, just for the imagined convenience to a user who followed the redirect can't find the victim's name a few lines into the section. If the victim's name was buried deeper, maybe there's a case for bolding it to make it clear why the redirect landed you on that section. Again, case by case. ~Anachronist(talk)20:08, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the case-by-case basis. And maybe I just missed the prescriptive/descriptive discussion (since this is going on in multiple places), and in that regard, I guess IDidn'tHT (insert sheepish averted gaze). Anyway... I see your point aboutbolding in that article is where the redirect is a victim's name but the target of the redirect is to a section about the perpetrator and I think I agreed with you in that regard atTalk:2025 Midtown Manhattan shooting#RFC: Bolding. Thanks for taking the time to clarify your point/position.ButlerBlog (talk)21:09, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your (Trypto) position of friction with BLP, but I disagree with its relevancy. That seems to be an overly broad reading of BLP. We use bold text for page titles, alternate titles, and redirects throughout the site. To say thatthe font draws attention to the names, and readers who did not arrive at the page via the redirect might understandably wonder why we are highlighting those names could be said about any text bolded under BOLDREDIRECT, so using it in some instances but not others is inconsistent. We haveWikipedia:Consistency that exists in other areas of MOS, so it makes more sense to equally apply BOLDREDIRECT in all cases rather than just some due to some external (and arbitrary) sensitivity.ButlerBlog (talk)12:56, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, and this isn't a hill I want to die on. But I also think consistency only gets us so far. The reasonWP:IAR has been settled consensus for so long is that we value (orshould value) human judgment over rigid rules. And to respond to the comment above about Hitler and Stalin, I don't see this as being about "bad people"per se. For me it's more aboutWP:NOTPUBLICFIGUREs, which Hitler and Stalin obviously are not. For private persons, and especially non-notable victims of crime, I'd prefer to do less in the way of drawing attention to them. But again, this is a battle I'm not going to fight. --Tryptofish (talk)19:03, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well in the case of non-notable victims of crime, the question may well be whether a redirect using their name is really needed? If the redirect is deleted, then there's certainly no reason for bolding.Gawaon (talk)21:37, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It would certainly seem like the path of least resistance, the only concern I'd have is that RFD discussions tend to invokeWP:CHEAP when discussing a redirect that isactually relevant to the target. Plus if we want to remain internally consistent as a project, we'd likely want to do a mass nomination of such redirects, or we'd run the risk of some of them being deleted while others were kept.
In this I am in total agreement with Locke Cole. We could delete the redirects of non-notable victim names. Where I disagree is that if we have a redirect (because,WP:CHEAP, y'know) that wemust boldface the name, even though we have no guideline saying this is mandatory. The guideline simply says we do this "commonly" or "often" but doesn't say weshould ormust do it. ~Anachronist(talk)20:13, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Anachronist, while we're looking at things that are obvious. Two things to keep in mind. One, just because there are two or even five people who want to keep BoldReDirect and RPLA the way it is should not mean we can't do hard work and amend them. They certainly try to thwart that though. Two, almost all articles about crime should not have the perpetrator's name in bold. That's a universal thing. I am incredulous that I have to explain this to people who should be able to see that.Efficacity (talk)20:19, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have never been fully on board with your position. I think I have made that clear. I initially removed all boldfacing at your request from one article, but early on I agreed it might be appropriate to boldface the perpetrator inthat specific article, but not the victims. All of my arguments have been consistent with that position. I don't necessarily agree with a broad application to all crime articles. Those would be considered on a case by case basis depending on context. ~Anachronist(talk)20:27, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If we can get to an agreement on "a case-by-case basis", I'd take that as an improvement over the argument that some editors make, that the namesmust be bolded every time. --Tryptofish (talk)20:31, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Beginning to think that if I could agree with Anachronist we'd find some new anti-gravity device... Why do you have to "sign on" to my ideas or say they're all fine? Do I have to outline this in extremely simple terms. We have some people who are tired of "fighting" on Wikipedia and so they're sitting this whole thing out, barely being involved, or are reticent to do much. Others (we're talking two to four) are seeing this as sport and won't let things be accomplished. I am saying in all or nearly all articles which are about crime, the perpetrator doesn't need to be bolded. How many times would that need to be said for it to sink in? Your case-by-case basis is not going to solve much. It does nothing for how victims' families feel. As for redirects, we could take that on too. This is not only about bolding. When I bring up ethics, morals, having compunction... it goes right by your ears, most of you. Get it together. I really think this site is getting hopeless.Efficacity (talk)20:48, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Except for you, all editors here are basing arguments on Wikipedia policies and guidelines, which have been formed overyears of consensus-building discussion. We don't override them lightly. You, on the other hand, are offering only appeals to emotion, so don't be surprised when experienced editors ignore those appeals – especially when we're discussing a content guideline, as we are here on this page.
In the article where this all started, I didn't see a case for bolding victim namesbased on our policies and guidelines, but saw a case to go either waybased on our policies and guidelines. My views would be different in different crime articles. As I said, case by case.
No, I think the idea is to show different way of integrating foreign terms into the text. Which one is most appropriate in any given situation will depend on the context and term. In this case, "crispbread" is a sufficient well known English word that even has its own article, while "butter made from goat's milk" is not a word at all, just an ad-hoc translation of the meaning.Gawaon (talk)15:03, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was reverted onocean heat content byJohnjbarton after I had bolded the acronyms associated with the article (OHC and OHU). If the article was in a vacuum, these acronyms would redirect toocean heat content but instead the acronyms link toOhu andOverhead camshaft engine. There seems to be no clairification as to what to do in this instance. If I had to fix the problem, I would either allowsome boldface names from disambugation pages (being limited if the usage is excessive or extremely tangential in some way) or under my previous assumption that, in a vacuum, the term would redirect to the article.✶Quxyz✶ (talk)22:41, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I think there is some confusion. The guidelines for bold text areMOS:BOLD. They may not match your expectations. The main use of bold in Wikipedia is to highlight the article topic in the first sentence and to highlightWP:redirect targets. Bold is not used for acronyms.
You may wish that the terms "OHC" and "OHU" did redirect toocean heat content. That is a separate issue and subject to a bunch of guidelines. There is a pageOHC (disambiguation) butOHC was going directly toOverhead camshaft engine. I changed this so OHC goes to disambiguation which includes "ocean heat content". Similarly "OHU". Assuming other editors agree, then that much is fixed. Now the acronyms lead to disambiguation pages.
Anyways, my point is that, even if an acronym does not redirect to an article because the article is not the primary topic when it comes to that acronym, it should still be boldfaced as it is a name of the topic. While it technically is not necessary, I feel like it is nice to have all names (unless excessive) boldfaced for consistency and partly for easier accessibility since the boldface is associated with names of the topic.✶Quxyz✶ (talk)23:31, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The base name should never be a redirect back to the same base name with "(disambiguation)" appended. That is aWP:MALPLACED disambiguation page. If you think there is no primary topic, then the disambiguation page should be moved. And all things considered, this would likely best be done after amove discussion establishes consensus rather than assuming it to be uncontroversial.older ≠wiser16:37, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If I understand you correctly, I should not have redirected "OHC" -> "OHC (disambiguation)", but rather "OHC (disambiguation)" -> "OHC"? (I take your point about discussion, I'm just trying to understand what the result should be)Johnjbarton (talk)16:43, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If there is agreement that there is no primary topic, then yes the disambiguation page would be atOHC andOHC (disambiguation) would be a redirect to that page. But it is not just a matter of copying the contents ofOHC (disambiguation) toOHC. You would need to move the page along with its edit history to the new name.older ≠wiser16:48, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In most cases, lower case titles should have the same target as the upper case versions. There are exceptions wheresmall differences matter, but as a general rule, unless there is good reason, capitalization differences should usually take readers the same article.older ≠wiser16:55, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My advice: remove the word "exactly" altogether (currently it occurs twice in the same sentence, which is once to twice too many) or better remove or reword the whole paragraph. I don't get why "finished in 40th place" is a misfortune, let alone an exact one, and the relevance and sanity of the entire paragraph sounds highly doubtful to me.Gawaon (talk)06:32, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There has already been adiscussion about this.Gawaon andPamD, neither one of you have demonstrated that you have read that discussion to determineall of the relevant policy and practice issues which have also not been introduced yet here on this page, much less discussed. I am off to a meeting and don't have time to discuss/rediscuss more thoroughly, but will do so, if needed, when I get back. Please look at all of the relevant policy and practice issues and be prepared to discuss them. Also, I have been on Wikipedia for over 15 years and familiar with a number of policies, such as the advice not to delete a lot of content, especially if it is all created by one user, which applies both to the Skirlińska and Löffler articles, as I have supplied nearly all of the material on those articles.Gawaon, your suggesting possibly removing the entire paragraph because of the usage of boldface for emphasis is something Wikipedia policy advises to be careful.QuakerIlK (talk)14:17, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@QuakerIlK I have read the earlier discussion, but I do not need to have read any discussion in order to see the words "Do not use boldfacing for emphasis" inMOS:EMPHASIS. That's the MOS and I have removed the bolding.PamD16:32, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@PamDMOS:EMPHASIS is aguideline, rather than apolicy. TheWikipedia policies and guidelines template specifically classifies the MOS under "guidelines", not "policies". Back to the basics of editing on Wikipedia, fromWikipedia:Policies and guidelines "Although Wikipedia generally does not have hard-and-fast rules, policies and guidelines are standards all users should normally follow, with guidelines providing guidance in specific contexts". Specifically, the basic Wikipedia definitions for policies and guidelines states about guidelines, underWikipedia:Policies and guidelines#Role, "Guidelines are sets of best practices supported by consensus. Editors should attempt to follow guidelines,though they are best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." So, one question I have for you is - How, exactly, is my having used boldface for emphasisonly once in the Skirlińska and Löffler articles, and only twice in the much longer Děkanová article, not an "occasional exception"? Also, as I already pointed out on theinitial discussion, there are numerous other extant examples of bolface being used (albeit sparingly, just like my usages) in the bio articles for sports figures such asMuhammad Ali,Wayne Gretzky, andMichael Jordan. I already discussed withFromCzech that part of the guidelines regarding boldfacing fromWikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Text_formatting#Article_title_terms "Boldface is often applied to the first occurrence of the article's title word or phrase in the lead. This is also done at the first occurrence of a term (commonly a synonym in the lead) that redirects to the article or one of its subsections, whether the term appears in the lead or not." I already pointed out numerous examples, such as howThe Greatest, emphasized with Boldface within the Muhammad Ali article, is neither the first usage of the article title in the lead, nor a redirect, nor an equivalent name used uniquely only for that article. If you check the Wikipedia article forThe Greatest, it leads to a page where the article for Muhammad Ali is one of only 19 such articles to which this phrase applies. The page forMJ, emphasized with boldface within the Michael Jordan article, lists more than 30 such articles for which “MJ” can refer. Additionally, the boldface emphasizedAir Jordan within the leader for Jordan’s article, when entered into Wikipedia’s search box, refers to the basketball and shortwear shoes line, not specifically and uniquely to Michael Jordan, himself, and there is even an advisement before the leader in the article sayingFor the defunct airline, see Air Jordan (airline). Similarly, within the Gretzky article, the boldface emphasized "The Great One", when used in Wikipedia’s search box, leads to an article where Gretzky’s article is only 1 of no fewer than 13 listed as relevant. Also, at least whereas the Jordan and Ali articles are concerned, I checked the talk page and all archives of the talk page, and there has never been a discussion of those examples of emphasized boldface - they've never, ever been objected to. So far in this discussion, nobody has linked to any specific guidelines that clearly enshrine those examples, differentiating them from my same degree of usage in the Skirlińska, Löffler, and Děkanová articles.
Clearly, in keeping with basic Wikipedia tenets and the spirit of the law on Wikipedia, and in keeping with numerous common and prominent examples of practice, my sparing usage of boldface on the Skirlińska, Löffler, and Děkanová articles is not explicitly out of line and is not specifically differentiated, in any Wikipedia guidelines that have yet been cited, from the Ali, Gretzky and Jordan examples, andPamD, you have, in haste, and without consensus, removed the boldfaced emphasizing from BOTH the Skirlińska and Löffler articles.QuakerIlK (talk)17:48, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I suggested to remove the paragraphs in question NOT because there was boldface in them, but because they seem to be expressing purely an editor's viewpoint of what's "misfortune" and are irrelevant for describing the lives of the article subjects. And because of that I have indeed deleted them now.Gawaon (talk)02:42, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that bold formatting should not be used for emphasis instead of italics without a very strong justification, which this scenario does not appear to have.
Since bold text indicates that the term is the subject of the article (including alternative names for the subject as well as terms that are redirect targets)—regardless of whether or not the terms in question are unique to that subject—using boldface only once in the body of an article when italics could serve the same purpose does not obviously serve the article better, and it arguably could confuse readers who are familiar with this widespread convention across WP. I'm not seeing an obvious deviation from the MOS in any of the examples given by QuakerIIK, so I'm a bit confused on how those scenarios are relevant here if at all.
Using bold text for emphasis could be justified in scenarios where italic formatting is already so abundant that italics alone would not provide emphasis, but that does not seem to be the case here. Lastly, the emphasis (or lack thereof) on "exactly" in this case is highly unlikely to change the meaning of the sentence, so it does not feel particularly important to emphasize at all; my personal opinion (which appears to align with others) is that the word "exactly" doesn't even need to be in the sentence, let alone emphasized.MossOnALogTalk18:45, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For one,User:MossOnALog, you didn't mention (via hyperlink) or quote any policies or guidelines, whatsoever, in your response. Furthermore, when it came down to the one specific differentiality which is the most technically helpful one in bolstering my synthesized argument, you merely set aside with hyphensregardless of whether or not the terms in question are unique to that subject, essentially saying "It doesn't matter", as if you, yourself, are the ultimate arbiter or judge and are creating a new policy. Then you argued upholding your opinion by saying that my sparing use of boldfaced emphasizing could "confuse" people. Neither is it my problem that, nor should I and every other user on Wikipedia be subjected to, paralyzing, flattening, minimizing, and overly equivocating micromanagement because, other readers or editors are either imbeciles or fail to understand the basic spirit of law on Wikipedia. This is not theSimple Wikipedia ([1]) for children or the intellectually impaired. This is Wikipedia for adults. Also, I fail to understand why you, like other users involved in this discussion, are trying to mushroom my very sparingly used boldfaced emphasizing by saying that that the words, themselves, should perhaps be eliminated, or others involved in this discussion are suggesting perhaps even eliminating entire paragraphs or saying that the whole articles are unencyclopedic in tone or bringing up comparisons to tabloid journalism. I'm not imposing any rules on anybody else or arguing that anything else should be changed, although I use manifestations in other articles for illumination onto the discussion. So, why the suggestion of possible escalation of deletionism of not only the style of my usage, but of the very content, itself? Are those meant to be scare tactics to silence me because my level of knowledge of Wikipedia's Spirit of Law, in addition to Policies and Guidelines, and in addition to my logical and writing skills, are unpalatable to those who disagree with me?QuakerIlK (talk)20:44, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@QuakerIlK, my apologies for not referencing the specific guidelines relevant to the points I was making. I didn't think it was necessary to link toMOS:NOBOLD andMOS:BOLD since those were already mentioned and linked in the post that I replied to, andMOS:EMPHASIS was already linked to in the first response to the original post. Some additional guidelines that are relevant areMOS:BOLDLEAD andMOS:BOLDALTNAMES, which cover the usage of bold formatting for the lead section and for alternative names, as well asMOS:BOLDREDIRECT andWP:RSURPRISE, which cover the usage of bold formatting for redirects.
Everything I said before was my good-faith interpretation of the guidelines/policies and my analysis of how this situation fits in with these guidelines and policies in a way that best serves the encyclopedia's goals and its users. A certain level of consistency across the encyclopedia is necessary no matter how intelligent the users are, hence the reason that we have a MOS and guidelines that represent consensus on the matters—i.e., striving for consistency is not a judgement of the audience's intelligence, it's a consideration for the user experience. You are welcome to disagree with my interpretations or analysis, and I don't believe I ever implied that my opinion counts more than others' opinions.
I have no intentions of trying to accuse or silence anyone, so I would appreciate if accusations of bad-faith or otherwise disruptive behavior were backed up with diffs and specific evidence, as outlined in the following essay:WP:ASPERSIONS.MossOnALogTalk21:19, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1)[2] From theoriginal discussionWe do not write fiction or an article for tabloid. The encyclopedia should use a neutral and factual tone and avoid emotional overtones, sensationalism, and drawing attention to text that someone finds interesting. SeeWP:FORMAL. The paragraph in Löffler's page should be rewritten to avoid the phrase "extreme misfortune" and information about Skirlińska's career that is not directly related to Löffler. This was written byFromCzech as if I needed to have an entire mentality explained to me. Also, it was not only boldfaced emphasizing, but suggesting the entire paragraph be removed, as one entire paragraph on each the Löffler and Skirlińska articles relate one to the other within a specific context. Moreover,FromCzech performed the same un-boldfacing on an entirely different article from the Skirlińska one back in May – that of the Löffler article. I noticed the repetition in behavior on my edits and that they were the same user, hence my need to explain a rationale on the Talk page, which I began by thanking them, only to receive, essentially, insults and insinuations/suggestions of further repeated deletionism, which user had committed twice (May 2nd[3] and November 18th[4]) against my edits, already. How is it thatFromCzech came upon non-prominent articles and decided to make these edits withput any discussion, anyway, especially on the same user’s edits?
2)[5]remove the word "exactly" altogether (currently it occurs twice in the same sentence, which is once to twice too many) or better remove or reword the whole paragraph This was written by userGawaon. Clear escalation via insinuated/suggested deletion.
3)[6]There is a similar problem in the article Janina Skirlińska, along with unencyclopedic tone in both articles. This was written byPamD. Along with PamD’s action of removing boldface emphasizing on BOTH Skirlińska’s and Löffler's articles, is she suggesting that yet more of the content of the articles are under threat?
4)[7] @MossOnALogYou, yourself, statedmy personal opinion (which appears to align with others) is that the word "exactly" doesn't even need to be in the sentence, let alone emphasized, which is yet more escalation of insinuated/suggested deletionism of not only removing boldface emphasis, but the actual word. The word, itself, is highly relevant. It is a fact that Löffler and Skirlińska were both the All-Around Bronze Medalists at the1934 Worlds and the 40th place finishers at the1936 Olympics. It is a fact that this was a change in outcome, for the both of them, that is exact in the paralleling, from one Worlds/Olympics to the next, which I further highlighted in the Děkanová article where I thoroughly provided the sources proving that, in context and contrast with all of their other all-around finishes at all other Worlds/Olympics that decade, this was a uniquely and contextually very low outcome for the both of them.WP:OTHERNAMES
5) The synthesized argument I put together already addressed (whether I or others mentioned them, specifically or not, and most were mentioned, specifically) all of the policies you linked to in the most recent post of yours. Moreover,WP:OTHERNAMES makes absolutely zero mention of boldface or emphasis.
Lastly, maybe I didn’t resort to casting aspersions and proving them with diffs because I’m not as quick to resort to unilateral, deletionist-style edits and/or insinuations/suggestions of minimalizing/effacing/deleting actions as all 4 of the rest of you have proven yourselves to be in this particular instance.QuakerIlK (talk)23:00, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you think these edits or the behavior of these editors are problematic—which I would disagree with—you are welcome to pursue a number of dispute resolution options.MossOnALogTalk23:15, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In conclusion, and for the record, this started out as being adiscussion merely about one stylistic decision regarding the usage of boldface for emphasis on the article forJanina Skirlińska. The discussion was them moved to thisMOS page where the discussion was begun, by editors other than me, about the same usage of boldface for emphasis on the article forEmanuel Löffler, instead of the article for Skirlińska. (The discussion was begun onFromCzech’s user page because they made edits on both the Löffler ([8]) and Skirlińska ([9]) articles, a few months apart, themselves, to begin with). I have experienced elsewhere on Wikipedia, when disagreements have arisen, relevant points that I have raised being side-stepped, and the focus was only on undoing or deleting work that I have done, which happened this time, also. In this case, once a consensus was reached against my position, not only were the original issues of contention decided against my position, but further deletionist action (the removing of whole paragraphs) of fact-based and properly-referenced material was taken against my work and the articles I was working on. Specifically, userGawaon removed 2 significant chunks or paragraphs in 2 edits ([10] and[11]) from the Löffler article and 2 complete paragraphs in 1 edit ([12]) from the Skirlińska article.
For the record, and in summary, once consensus was reached, it appears that at least one involved editor interpreted this to provide carte blanche permission to go on further major deletions on my work and these articles, greatly reducing the informative quality of them. I am making this last contribution to this discussion for the purpose of providing clarity about the inappropriate, disproportionate, and negative outcome of these discussions, rather than allowing the resulting deletionary edits to remain under-noticed.QuakerIlK (talk)22:09, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Let's keep the discussion on whether to restore the deleted content in some form or other to the talk pages of the articles in question, it does not belong here. Also, the discussion here wasnot about whether those paragraphs are relevant and appropriate for Wikipedia in the first place, and you should know that anyone can edit and improve Wikipedia, including by removing irrelevant or unsourced content. No prior talk page consensus is required to do so.Gawaon (talk)02:02, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Revisiting this discussion led me to look atVlasta Děkanová where I have removed bolding used for emphasis in two places. I am not sure that the level of detail about other competitors is appropriate: others might like to have a look. There is a completely unsourced section.PamD05:58, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Exceptions to 85% font size for motorsport articles?
Update: The consensus at the WikiProject page appears to be that the editors feel that motorsport articles should be exempt from the 85% font size guideline, which was the subject of at least one RFC, as far as I know. Meanwhile, thousands of WikiProject NASCAR articles display text at 64% of the base page size, andthat project has been notified twice of those problems, with no response. Editors here might be interested in contributing to the discussion. –Jonesey95 (talk)22:20, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I might point out that perWP:CONLEVEL, WikiProject discussions cannot override any rule set by the MOS. In this case that's clearly for the better, since such an outcome (exemption) would be very unfriendly to any readers with less than perfect eyesight.Gawaon (talk)02:45, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I maintain that plain numbers should be treated differently to written prose regardless, without considering thatthe re-skin of Wikipedia in 2022 rendered the prior consensus on text size moot. This consensus was determined when 85% of the text size was what 74% is now for the vast majority of readers and editors. Standard superscript is ~80% of the normal text size:22.
For reference, I have a –3.50dioptre and use the small text setting; the only issue I have had in my years of editing motorsport articles are the tables on NASCAR articles—{{small}} within 75% is plainly too small to be accessible and outright flaunts the policy. This was seemingly selected as a compromise for the tables being43 columns wide, but I agree that is an undue balance. The consensus in MOTORSPORT is not referring to those tables, rather the use of{{small}}—exclusively on 1–2 digit numerical entries—within 85–95% tables.MB243704:11, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If I'm reading and understandingMOS:FOREIGNITALIC correctly,Giardiniera does not qualify for an italics title (using{{Italics title}}) as using italics "...does not apply to loanwords or phrases that see everyday use in non-specialized English, such asqi, Gestapo, samurai, esprit de corps, e.g., i.e., etc.—as these have become English-language vocabulary...", which I would argue that Giardiniera is now in everyday use in English. However, there is a user who diagrees with me on this, so rather than dragging this out, I'd thought I'd come here and try to establish some sort of consensus. Thoughts? Also, I have no idea about whetherthis is correct or not. I would assume these two issues are related, but I have not looked into the{{lang}} bit.Jauerbackdude?/dude.14:12, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You are invited to join the discussion atTalk:2025 Midtown Manhattan shooting § Bolding. —Locke Cole •t •c15:46, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
