In our editorial policy, we treat the web as a publication medium like others. We don’t give it special treatment unless something inherent in the medium calls for doing so.
Titles of free-standing works in print are italicized, and so are such works on the web. This policy is clear-cut for online works with a single author like People of Color in European Art History. Other sites, like Wikipedia, have a collective authorship but are unified works all the same. Further out on the spectrum, a site like Facebook has no unifying authorial mission: it’s a template filled by independent authors. Yet all authorship there takes place under a heading, Facebook, and the constraints of the template give a character to the content, however minimal.
A good editorial policy should be simple and not demand hairsplitting by writers, editors, or readers. Typography offers few tools for conveying conceptual distinctions. We think that the least vexed approach is to use a single format for all three titles above (and the titles of all other websites). To argue that Facebook is fundamentally unlike the other two would require a definition establishing the difference—a definition that can clearly divide all other sites into one of the two categories. The definition would be endlessly debatable, given all the variations in online publication.
There are also practical benefits to italicizing Facebook, Google+, and so on. The italicization results in more readable prose in a tech-heavy discussion that includes many unitalicized capped terms (acronyms, trademarks, names of companies). Further, the style allows for typographic distinction between titles of sites and similar names of companies. Just as italics helpfully mark the difference between The New York Times (the newspaper) and the New York Times Company, so they allow a useful distinction in “a posting on Facebook” versus “the CEO of Facebook.”
Beth Seiler 04 August 2016 AT 01:08 PM
I have a question. I have been told by two respected and educated people: one says to italicize all works, the other, no changes with italics and quotation marks for writings. Has MLA changed the punctuation so that now all works no matter how small all should be italicized?
Thank you for clearing up this controversy.
Nigel Bradley 25 November 2017 AT 05:11 PM
Not all works are italicized. Some use quotation marks. A good rule of thumb is to use the "container" approach. If a work is small enough that it can be contained in a larger work, it goes in quotation marks. Short stories and poems (short works) are contained in larger works (books). Thus short works are in quotation marks. The longer works, or containers, go in italics: books, movies, websites, video games, albums, etc., are all longer works that could contain shorter works (chapters, scenes, articles, levels, songs, etc.).
CYNTHIA CURRENT 21 April 2019 AT 01:04 PM
I found this thread when searching for appropriate expression of the name of app. I lean toward italics because they do not seem to meet the definition of being contained in a larger work.
Brian Orland 12 January 2022 AT 12:01 PM
I have a PhD student writing about the development of an app, so the word appears repeatedly. Should it simply be written as app or differentiated in some way such as italicized or bold? In a sentence, it is so brief that it often does not get consciously read, so I have to re-read to get the meaning and "see" the word.
Join the Conversation
We invite you to comment on this post and exchange ideas with other site visitors. Comments are moderated and subject to terms of service.
If you have a question for the MLA's editors, submit it to Ask the MLA!