Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2017 April 11
| Humanities desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < April 10 | << Mar | April | May >> | April 12 > |
| Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives |
|---|
| The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages. |
April 11
[edit]Can somebody help me with this issue? Best regards--Hubon (talk) 14:02, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Does anybody get why some of the names are written in italics here?--Hubon (talk) 16:18, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
- Paging Megalodon34 (talk · contribs) who added a few of these links to this template, including most of the ones in italics. uhhlive (talk) 16:32, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
- Saints in Islam currently redirects to Wali. Perhaps some guidance in that article? --Jayron32 16:50, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
- The ones in italics are redirects to other articles. But being a redirect is no barrier to being categorised, templated, linked, whatever, and everywhere such a redirected title appears, the system makes it appear in italics. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 21:45, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
- No, they aren't all redirects. DuncanHill (talk) 21:46, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
- In fact, none of them are. What I said is true of redirects, but it isn't relevant in this case. My apologies. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 05:51, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
- Actually, when you made the comment some of them were, but it had no correlation to the italicisation, which is caused by wikiformatting within the template. I changed those few redirects to direct links, as templates work better with direct links. DuncanHill (talk) 14:12, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
- In fact, none of them are. What I said is true of redirects, but it isn't relevant in this case. My apologies. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 05:51, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
- No, they aren't all redirects. DuncanHill (talk) 21:46, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
- At one point, the template included this text: "figures whose name is not italicized means that he is explicitly alluded to as a prophet whenever his name is mentioned in Islamic texts." [1] - Nunh-huh 05:17, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks to everybody for commenting. Now, I'd say the typography is in fact a bit confusing here without the former note cited by Nunh-huh, don't you think?--Hubon (talk) 15:37, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
- I think it's a little confusing even with the former note. I see no reason not to eliminate it. - Nunh-huh 17:10, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks to everybody for commenting. Now, I'd say the typography is in fact a bit confusing here without the former note cited by Nunh-huh, don't you think?--Hubon (talk) 15:37, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
- At one point, the template included this text: "figures whose name is not italicized means that he is explicitly alluded to as a prophet whenever his name is mentioned in Islamic texts." [1] - Nunh-huh 05:17, 12 April 2017 (UTC)