Talk:Incentre: Difference between revisions
imported>David E. Volk m (New page: {{subpages}}) |
imported>Richard Pinch (→Bolding and links: in the absence of policy I'll use my discretion) |
||
| (5 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{subpages}} | {{subpages}} | ||
== Bold vs links == | |||
The reason I put several terms in bold in this article is that they serve as anchors for redirects which point back to this page. So for example, at present [[Incircle]] redirects to [[Incentre]] and hence it is pointless to make it a link in the Incentre article -- indeed, I doubt that there will ever come a time when those two topics will deserve separate articles. But at present if someone goes to "incircle" and is then redirected here, they will expect to see the word they searched for highlighted in the introduction. Unless there's a good reason not to, I propose to go back to the style I was using before. [[User:Richard Pinch|Richard Pinch]] 07:14, 26 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
== Bolding and links == | |||
The CZ format is to use bold only for the title word or phrase, and to use italics for emphasis of words. That is why I removed the bolds and changed them to links. If however, some of the new links that I made are self-redirects, then they should be changed to normal font or italicized font, but not to bold text. | |||
[[User:David E. Volk|David E. Volk]] 14:25, 26 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
:That's very categorical, and if it's a definite style ''in this situation'' then I appreciate knowing that. On the other hand I think the reasons I gave above make sense. Can you point me to the page where these issues are laid out please? [[User:Richard Pinch|Richard Pinch]] 18:22, 26 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
::Many of us discussed this at length awhile back, probably in the forums, but at present I don't have the time to dig them up for you. I can't find "a rule" in Article Mechanics (see left of any page under Dive In!), or the more complete document linked therein, that says that italics are favored over bold for non-title words, but that was the consensus awhile back. The bold title rule is listed there (Article Mechanics), but not trying to limit the use of bolds for other words. If you randomly look at any 10 articles, you should see that generally only the title word or phrase it bolded and other words are emphasized with italics. | |||
As for incircle, it seems to me that incentre is a subset of incircle and that perhaps incentre should redirect to incircle or that an article should exist for both items. [[User:David E. Volk|David E. Volk]] 19:11, 26 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
:Then it seems that there is no objection of policy to my taking the opportunity, while fixing the self-redirects, to bolding the ''anchors'', which are the title words of the several redirects rather than emphases as such. I would be surprised if there were enough material any time soon to merit different articles on incentre and incircle. [[User:Richard Pinch|Richard Pinch]] 20:31, 26 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 14:31, 26 November 2008
Bold vs links
The reason I put several terms in bold in this article is that they serve as anchors for redirects which point back to this page. So for example, at present Incircle redirects to Incentre and hence it is pointless to make it a link in the Incentre article -- indeed, I doubt that there will ever come a time when those two topics will deserve separate articles. But at present if someone goes to "incircle" and is then redirected here, they will expect to see the word they searched for highlighted in the introduction. Unless there's a good reason not to, I propose to go back to the style I was using before. Richard Pinch 07:14, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Bolding and links
The CZ format is to use bold only for the title word or phrase, and to use italics for emphasis of words. That is why I removed the bolds and changed them to links. If however, some of the new links that I made are self-redirects, then they should be changed to normal font or italicized font, but not to bold text. David E. Volk 14:25, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
- That's very categorical, and if it's a definite style in this situation then I appreciate knowing that. On the other hand I think the reasons I gave above make sense. Can you point me to the page where these issues are laid out please? Richard Pinch 18:22, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
- Many of us discussed this at length awhile back, probably in the forums, but at present I don't have the time to dig them up for you. I can't find "a rule" in Article Mechanics (see left of any page under Dive In!), or the more complete document linked therein, that says that italics are favored over bold for non-title words, but that was the consensus awhile back. The bold title rule is listed there (Article Mechanics), but not trying to limit the use of bolds for other words. If you randomly look at any 10 articles, you should see that generally only the title word or phrase it bolded and other words are emphasized with italics.
As for incircle, it seems to me that incentre is a subset of incircle and that perhaps incentre should redirect to incircle or that an article should exist for both items. David E. Volk 19:11, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
- Then it seems that there is no objection of policy to my taking the opportunity, while fixing the self-redirects, to bolding the anchors, which are the title words of the several redirects rather than emphases as such. I would be surprised if there were enough material any time soon to merit different articles on incentre and incircle. Richard Pinch 20:31, 26 November 2008 (UTC)