When writing technical articles, it is usually the case that a number of technical terms or jargon specific to the subject matter will be presented. These should be defined or at least alternative language provided, so that a non-technical reader can both learn the terms and understand how they are used by scientists. It is also the case that such an article can cover a range of related subjects that might not each justify a separate article or Wikipedia page, and therefore making technical terms stand out in the text is the first level in a sequence from definition to subtitle to separate article. On the other hand, do not treat every “scientific” word as a technical term. Ask the question: Is this the only article or one of a very few where the term might be encountered in Wikipedia? Consider the examples presented below. There are three basic markups used to make technical terms stand out; these are italic (also termed oblique with sans-serif fonts), bold, and bold italic. The following uses of these styles are recommended for technical articles: Italic (edited as ''italic'') is used for:
Bold (edited as '''bold'''); used for:
Bold italic (edited as '''''bold italic'''''); used for:
As in the fern example above, any of the three styles described above could be turned into a link if there exists a more detailed or better explanation of the technical term in a separate article. It may not be necessary then to define the term in the article if a link leads to a definition. However, to aid the reader in continuing with the text without having to leave an article for other details, it might still be appropriate to include a non-technical substitute in parentheses, as in the fern example above. When a vast amount of jargon appears in an article, you might consider bundling all terms and their definitions within a list. When you do so, do use the appropriate definition list markup: Instead of *'''term''': definition use ; term : definition Some other markups are available but risky. Examples are teletype (edited as <tt>teletype</tt>), underline (edited as <u>underline</u>), and italic (edited as <i>italic</i> or <cite>italic</cite>). But the teletype (monospace) tag does not usually produce text sufficiently different from the standard Wikipedia font to be useful; the underline tag can create confusion with links; and the HTML tags <i> and <cite> are not differentiated by most common browsers. The Wikipedia italic, described above and edited as ''italic'', is preferable to the HTML tags <i> and <cite>. The markup "double-quoted" (edited as "double-quoted") is not risky, but see the Wikipedia:Manual of Style, subsection Punctuation for use of quotation marks. See also
| |