Do i italicize de facto relationship

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Text formatting/Archive 5 - Wikipedia

In scientific writing, it is important to know when to correctly italicize Latin terms in your manuscript. There are some rules that authors need to. The SpAd is de facto a temporary civil servant who is appointed by a government The 'above the line' category includes those activities that would be considered the much lamented democratic deficit' (Wodak, 25, italics in original). Use of italics, bold, and roman text. - Abbreviations . Dover–Calais. Sometimes used instead of a solidus (/). editor–author relationship ex post facto in situ.

There are quite literally thousands of cases of this particular error all over Wikipedia.

style guide: italics and quotes | Abagond

One editor had suggested somewhat weakly in that route names should be italicized. Another editor questioned this in and got no response. Should they be italicised? I'm surprised to see it myself. I don't think WikiProject guidelines are enough — WP: This is matter of policy at WP: Wikiprojects are not magical fiefdoms with their own rules; they are simply pages at which editors agree to coordinate their collaborative editing on particular topics.

If editors at WP: This would be a much broader discussion that they might realize, since it will also implies rules for hiking and biking trails, among other things. I'd bet good money that the consensus will be that it's yet another case of the WP: Specialist style fallacyin which devotees of some particular area insist on trying to impose on a general encyclopedia some precious style only used in their specialist publications, that makes no sense to anyone outside their club.

MOS bends over backwards to accommodate quirks of various fields, but only where they do not violate the principle of least astonishment for the largest number of users i. At this time France possessed the largest population in Europe see Demographics of France. Unlike many traditional reference works, the convention on Wikipedia that has evolved is that "see" or "see also" are not in italics.

Nor are the article titles put in quotation marks. This very MOS subpage itself uses the italicization convention! TEXT Article title terms: The most common use of boldface is to highlight the article title, and often synonyms, in the lead section. This is done for the majority of articles, but there are exceptions. See Lead section — Format of the first sentence for in-depth coverage.

It is correct that the practice, favored in some academic journals, of italicizing only the "see" or "see also" part is eschewed on Wikipedia, and that's an important and valid thing to note. We should clarify this entire section, and give examples: It's how literally hundreds of thousands of such cross-references have been done, surely the vast majority of them. I regularly correct non-italicized ones to italicized, and I don't recall anyone ever, even once, reverting me on that.

List of horse breeds is in severe need of cleanup to fix the "see Criollo horse "-style half-itacization; it has over a hundred misusages in it. Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere. Please see Wikipedia talk: Under "Named vehicles", MOS: But what about named automobiles? Currently there's a great deal of inconsistency regarding the use of italics in named automobile articles. For example the first 5 named automobile articles I thought of: Italics are used for most occurrences throughout the article but not the lead I think it be helpful if MOS: It seems be limited to water vessels and by analogy to air- and spacecraft, though it's not as consistently applied to the latter two as to the former, where it borders on universal.

Agree MOS should cover these cases. Amphibious vehicles, like the hovercraft ferries used in some places, would be treated as per boats, since they are boats that also happen to go up on land a bit.

It seems weird to me that the individually named land vehicles best known in popular culture are not italicized by anyone, anywhere, as I just demonstrated, yet 5 cases suddenly turn up, on articles much less likely to be watchlisted seriously, why does General Lee car exist as a separate article?

05 House Style - Oxford University Press

The vessels convention does not apply to smaller conveyances such as cars, trucks, and buses. Signatures On the topic of "Appearance and color" and line-heightand post comments there.

I wrote a text in Word that include a lot of italic words. I would like to copy and paste this huge text into a Wikipedia articles. When formatting my text to fit to the Wikipedia style, I really don't want to add the double quotes for italic words manually. Is there by any chance a way to add a double apostrophe before and after all italicized words in Word, so that I can copy and paste my text directly to Wikipedia?

Many thanks in advance for your help. If those do not provide the desired result, WP: I actually found the old fashion way with Word actually, which consists of entering in the Find What control: That was tough to find, and the WediaWiki Add-in is an easier way indeed. I now need to find a way to cite sources with Zotero reference that I used in my text, in Word. The only technique I could find is this one: This will still take a lot of time to do with the large number of references that I have in my text though.

But thanks for your help already, both you! Regards,-- Christophe Hendrickx talk Pointer to relevant discussions elsewhere.

I've opened an RfC at Template talk: Tq Removing the italics option that could affect the unwanted incidence of italicization of quotations simply because they're quotations.

See also Template talk: Qq Italicization disputed for some related discussion. Comments on that page are welcome. One obvious questions is: I think not, but one must ask the question.

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Text formatting/Archive 5

Mitch Ames talk This would involve actively guiding editors with style questions to WT: MoS and away from other pages, such as this one. Share via Email There is a quiet little war being fought out in the alleys of the Temple and the corridors of the law courts.

At stake is the whole body of sayings and maxims in a language no one can speak and very few can understand. The lawyers who use and abuse it call it legal Latin. It is a straight fight between abolitionists and retentionists; or, to put it another way, between those who wish to do away with coitus interruptus and those who wish to retain fellatio.

At the heart of this battle is one tiny phrase - pro bono. It is short for pro bono publico, "for the public good" in Latin, and in the legal world it refers to lawyers who do unpaid work for the good of the community. But that term is both the subject and the symbol of the greater struggle, for the very existence of legal Latin. Pro bono enters the picture because there is a national public competition currently under way to find a suitable English translation.

The competition - devised by the Institute of Legal Executives - seeks to find a lively form of words which will mean something to the general public and, surprisingly, to some apparently ignorant lawyers. Lord Woolf's reasoning for wanting the change was dramatic and provocative: In other words, he seems to be saying, lawyers would be doing more work for free if the free work was labelled in English rather than Latin. Are we to understand that there are lawyers out there who are desperate to be giving their services for nothing, but don't know that they can do so because they don't understand what pro bono means?

Do they think they are being asked to work for U2's lead singer or Cher's late former husband? Do such lawyers really exist? Or is it that needy people wanting a free lawyer see a sign saying "Get your pro bono here" and pass on, muttering, "no, this can't be it. He has been at the forefront of the campaign his critics would call it a conspiracy to drive Latin out of the vocabulary of the law. He was the mastermind behind recent radical changes to the civil justice system which included the replacement of traditional Latin terms with English ones.

Out in theory at least went "in camera", officially giving way to "in private"; ex parte - not a get-together of former spouses but the term describing an application to court where the opponent has not been given notice - to be replaced by "without notice"; certiorari no need to know what it is yielding to a "quashing order".

Even affidavit yes it is Latin, albeit medieval is at risk, being supplanted in some circumstances by "statement of truth". The use of Latin, he said, "seems to be the best possible system for excluding the involvement or understanding of the general public". That is the Woolf line too, backed by most judges I know.

But the retentionists are fighting back. But is there any valid argument for retaining a vocabulary that only some lawyers and virtually no non-lawyers can understand, just because it has been around for centuries? Gray admits that some terms do not mean very much. De bene esse is a well known, often used legal expression. But no one can agree on its definition, not even the lawyers who mouth it.

Is it "for what it is worth", "for the time being", "for the purposes of argument" or "for the hell of it"? Gray encountered all four answers when he asked barristers what they meant by the phrase. Hardly an argument for retaining it. The retentionists' main argument, as you might expect from public school-educated judges and barristers, centres on sex. Edward Gibbon commented in Sex talk in the courts is, whenever possible, in Latin, to make sure that no one outside the law can possibly know what is going on.