Talk:Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Consecration of Russia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121209052653/http://campus.udayton.edu:80/mary/resources/aprtable.html to http://campus.udayton.edu/mary/resources/aprtable.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140625035430/http://gazetaslovo.com/ to http://gazetaslovo.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:49, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Boldface

The topic is not a named event. The title of the article is merely descriptive. We can deduce that from the term "Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of the Blessed Virgin Mary" being found in only one published book. Both it and the more common description, "consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of the Blessed Virgin Mary", always appear in lower case, so they are not treated as proper names either. Merely descriptive titles should not be bolded per MOS:FIRST.

The boldface in this and similar cases is not only of no benefit to the reader but to their detriment because links to essential topics have to be scattered around the lead section instead of appearing in the lead sentence when the concepts are first introduced. Surtsicna (talk) 15:35, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Boldfacing the title at first mention is fine and allowed, see WP:BOLDFACE. The links to the terms are easy to locate in the lead (I actually had to link 'consecration' so it was linked). There is no problem here, and of course the title is a descriptor of an event (or several events). Randy Kryn (talk) 15:41, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Of course it is fine and allowed. MOS:FIRST cites exceptions, however, and this would be one per MoS. This is a situation in which boldface does harm and no good. What benefit is there for the reader? Surtsicna (talk) 16:59, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

I see no harm, and the benefit is to accent the topic per title (which is the purpose of all Wikipedia boldfaced first mentions). Randy Kryn (talk) 00:02, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Are readers not served better by linking essential topics as soon as they are brought up than by accenting the topic title? Surtsicna (talk) 00:51, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

The topics are mentioned and linked in the lead paragraph, so nothing is lost either on home screens or mobile. Thanks again for the name change. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:00, 1 March 2023 (UTC)