Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Titles of works

Some titles of major works will reference other titles of major works; some of the former will even go so far as to literally italicize the latter on their covers and title pages. For example:

• McIntee, David (2000). Delta Quadrant: The unofficial guide to Voyager. London: Virgin Publishing Ltd. ISBN 0-7535-0436-7.
• Rindsberg, Ashley (c. 2021). The Gray Lady Winked: How The New York Times's Misreporting, Distortions & Fabrications Radically Alter History.

When it comes to using italics within italics, I know we do it inside hatnotes (WP:ITHAT), but this MOS page doesn't describe whether we also do so in articles' references or body. I didn't find anything by searching this page's archives, but maybe I missed it? Assistance and codification would be appreciated. Thanks, all, — Fourthords | =Λ= | 21:54, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

If this isn't the appropriate venue for this inquiry, can somebody point me in the correct direction? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 14:03, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

The way you styled the titles above certainly follows the advice at WP:ITHAT and also what our article Italic type#Italics within italics says. I don't see how that could be considered as wrong. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 16:14, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Between those two, and your input, do you think it should be added to this MOS page, or/and MOS:NAT so as to be easily referencable? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 09:46, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

I see no need for adding the obvious to the MOS, but I also don't care if it is. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 15:32, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Just a note I started a thread at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources#Conforming citations to Wikipedia style regarding guidance which appears to conflict with MOS:CONFORMTITLE, MOS:CONFORM, and MOS:TMRULES, if anyone here is interested in participating. -- Beland (talk) 03:50, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Help me out, please. The Hand That Signed the Paper or The Hand that Signed the Paper? wbm1058 (talk) 13:25, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

According to MOS:TITLECAPS, all pronouns are capitalized, thus 'That'. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 16:29, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure "that" is a conjunction, rather than a pronoun. pburka (talk) 13:12, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

It's not (it can be replaced with "which"; a conjunction is "I know that he is lying."), but regardless, subordinating conjunctions are also capitalized. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:25, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Audio albums are major works (taking italics), singles are minor works (taking quotation marks) ... but how about EPs, which fall in between? Practice seems to be inconsistent, even within the article Extended play (see e.g. the sentence "Examples are Elvis Presley's Love Me Tender from 1956 and "Just for You", "Peace in the Valley" and "Jailhouse Rock" from 1957, and the Kinks' Kinksize Session from 1964.") Whatever the answer, could it be explicitly spelled out in this article? 78.33.29.98 (talk) 17:00, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

According to MOS:MAJORWORKS, EPs do count as major. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 07:12, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Would only Be be capitalized or To as well? -- ZooBlazer 21:47, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

"Senate Intelligence Committee report on Russian interference in the 2016 United States presidential election"

Why are "report", "interference", and "presidential election" not capitalized? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:00, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Because this is a description of the document and not the document’s actual title. Thus, we present it in sentence case and not Title Case. Blueboar (talk) 23:14, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

That makes sense. Thanks. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:17, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

I noticed this edit of JudeFawley. I'm pretty sure that's not correct, but I'd like some input before getting into that. Paradoctor (talk) 14:49, 6 November 2025 (UTC)