Talk:Qi

Romanization section

The section on Romanziation is taken from a footnote in Homepathy/Draft. I will post justification for this edit on Talk:Homeopathy shortly. –Tom Morris 11:49, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Italics

So is "qi" italicised or not? The article is undecided. It is certainly easier to read without the italics, at least on my browser. Ro Thorpe 01:06, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps a Chinese linguist could make the call? We probably should, at some time, make a style guideline about non-English words. Howard C. Berkowitz 01:32, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

This is about English, so no Chinese linguist needed. If it is a non-English word, it gets italics, if not, no need. Italics should be for introducing new alienesque words, not for the subject of the article. And there's the question of readability: italics, especially for such a tiny word much repeated, look horrid. Ro Thorpe 02:32, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I do not think qi needs italics in an article on the topic. It might elsewhere.

The larger issue is a question of English linguistics and style guidelines or editorial policy. There are several linguists about; User:Domergue_Sumien leaps to mind.

Whatever the policy, many questions will come down to judgment calls. Some words or expressions from other languages become English words, but just when they pass the boundary can hard to decide. I'd say Sanskrit "karma" is now normal in English; others might not. In such cases, it comes down to an editor deciding.

Do we keep the italics for coup d'etat or habeus corpus? That's a style guide question. I'd say yes. Sandy Harris 04:19, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Despite the probability that five-sevenths of the EC will spend weeks debating whether to (and then ostentatiously, one by one, voting to) instigate an investigation of me for having no opinion on this, I have no opinion on this. Mea maxima culpa and/or mea maxima culpa. Whichever. Bruce M. Tindall 04:38, 26 January 2011 (UTC)