Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Manual of Style page.
	Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith Avoid personal attacks Be welcoming Shortcut: WT:MOS
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109

Manual of StyleWikipedia:WikiProject Manual of StyleTemplate:WikiProject Manual of StyleManual of Style articles		WikiProject Manual of Style
	v • d • e This page falls within the scope of WikiProject Manual of Style, a drive to identify and address contradictions and redundancies, improve language, and coordinate the pages that form the MoS guidelines.

edit See also
Wikipedia talk:Guide to writing better articles
Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions

Contents 1 Punctuation: Quotation marks: Inside or outside 1.1 The debate over punctuation 1.2 The Dispute Tag 1.3 Imperative vs. indicative 1.4 Ambiguous phrasing in British English explanation 1.5 Quotation-mark dispute should end soon 2 Periods and full stops 3 Dash spacing in categories 4 ENGVAR scope: Germany, UK English, and the EU 5 background-image? 6 Example error 6.1 Another questionable example 7 Vertical whitespace 8 Use of the article before the name of a ship 9 Italicize a media franchise? 10 Requested edit 11 WP:BLAZON 12 Large numbers of images 13 italicised dates 14 Space after number sign 15 Proposal: a MoS section for the use of prepositions

[edit] Punctuation: Quotation marks: Inside or outside

Newcomers to this debate, please read this first. Here is the matter under dispute: The Wikipedia Manual of Style has adopted a system called "logical quotation" for use in all articles. This system differs from both standard American English and from standard British English in the ways described below. The reasons for the adoption of "logical quotation" are stated on the MoS page. Arguments against this guideline, and additional arguments in favor, can be read on this and archived talk pages. Emotions run high where this matter is concerned, so please take extra care to conduct yourself in a manner befitting a Wikipedia editor.

Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

There was an inaccuracy in the above; caught between editing another editor's comment, and leaving an inaccuracy in an introductory paragraph for the section (I do like the idea of having such a paragraph, assuming everyone can agree on its phrasing), I tried to clarify the relationship between the paragraph and its original author by simply placing a paragraph break before the signature — perhaps there is a better way to mark the distinction?

The inaccuracy was the representation that logical and British never differ in practice; in fact, they rarely differ in practice. If there is dispute over the point, then the paragraph needs to be either revised to acknowledge or sidestep the disagreement (so long as it remains unresolved), or the paragraph should be struck out. Universal permission is really required for this, otherwise it isn't cricket to retroactively insert stuff at the top of the section. Pi zero (talk) 14:52, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I am fine with "rarely." Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:08, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

British quotation also differs from logical quotation in that when a quotation is integrated into an author's sentence, the period is placed outside the quotation mark, even if the period belonged to the original quotation. This applies even if the quoted material is a complete sentence (MHRA Style Guide 2008, 43).

• The British man said 'The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog'.
• The logician said "The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog." As did the American.

In British English however, if the integrated quotation is separated by a punctuation mark, then the endpoint is placed logically.

• The British man said, 'The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog.'
• The British man said: 'The quick brown fox', shrewdly enough, 'jumps over the lazy dog.'

Sometimes the British and American styles concur, where presumably the logical style could differ. If a partial quotation is followed by a parenthetical citation, the end point would follow the parenthetical reference, even if it belonged to the original quotation.

• The American could not bare to tell his British friend that a truck had struck his 'lazy dog' (The Guardian 2009, A1).

Best, Miguel Chavez (talk) 19:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I've simplified the opening statement, reducing that part of it to the basic fact that logical quotation is different from both of the other two. I think it's extremely valuable to newcomers to let them know that at the outset. Pi zero (talk) 23:48, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] The debate over punctuation

Out of curiosity, how did this odd little community decide that periods and commas belong outside the quotation marks? This goes against traditional academic standards, rules set by MLA, the APA, Harvard and others. What books did you consult? What books have you read? Have you taken English courses recently? If you're British, then you are forgiven. That's your academic convention after all. But for all the Americans here, what the hell y'all thinking?

For example, see Quotation Marks: Teaching the Basics by Susan Collins, The McGraw-Hill Handbook of English Grammar by Mark Lester, or The Associated Press guide to Punctuation by René J. Cappon. Better still, pick up any old book from your local library. Have you glanced at the featured articles on Wikipedia? Have you seen which style they have adopted? Best, Miguel Chavez (talk) 07:23, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm American, and generally prefer American usage. Some Britishisms absolutely make me itch — whilst, aluminium, dice used as singular. But on this one I'm with the Brits. In this case they just happen to be right. Quotation marks enclose that which is being quoted; if the thing you're quoting doesn't have the punctuation mark, then it shouldn't be there. --Trovatore (talk) 07:29, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The funny part is I agree with you. It has always made logical sense to me to adopt the British style. But here's the rub, it's not up you or me to decide these things! There is a long history of precedent, and grammatical rules have already been put in place. They are being taught in schools, enforced in our universities, and are adopted by almost every English speaking scholar, editor, and publishing house. If Wikipedia is a tool of education -- which we are lead to believe -- then we do a disservice to this aim by advocating a convention that will be rejected by most learned institutions. There are practical reasons for keeping grammer and punctuation universal. But it seems that this group wants to play by their own rules. Miguel Chavez (talk) 07:50, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Some irony: those same style guides would tell you that em-dashes used in that manner should be close-set and not spaced around (and you didn't type an em-dash anyway but two hyphens). You say "...keeping grammer [sic] and punctuation universal" and don't care that spelling should also be universal. So is agreement between number ("this group" is singular, "they" is plural). So you take and choose which rules you carefully follow with documented precedent, and which you don't care about or follow. Everyone is the same way, with different peeves and blind spots. Długosz (talk) 16:25, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

This isn't the American Wikipedia. It's the English-language Wikipedia. Accordingly, the project has had to address the issue of dealing with national variations in English.

As your original post admits, the punctuation style employed here (sometimes called the "logical" style) is the one common in British English. On the other hand, we use the double quotation marks of American English. There is no perfect solution. This is the one we've adopted. One could make a sensible argument for saying that each editor uses the style that's considered academically correct in his or her home country, but that would produce jarring changes of style within a single article (sometimes within a single sentence). See Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Quotation marks. At one point that section or some other MoS provision characterized our approach as splitting the difference between AE and BE usage. We also have rules about the spelling differences between different versions of English. Sometimes "neighbour" is correct and sometimes "neighbor" is correct. JamesMLane t c 08:11, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I understand that we should shy away from American parochialism. But that by itself is not an argument. This little group here has decided to adopt a style used by a minority of English speakers, and one which is at odds with the preponderance of English speaking academics and academic institutions. It is rejected by the Modern Language Association (the folks on the literary side), the American Psychological Association (the scientific side), as well as the good folks at Harvard. My point is this. A lot of kids read Wikipedia, and they -- for better or worse -- are going to incorporate what they see here into their writing styles. And you know what, you're going to piss their teachers off. Why, 'cause you think you know better. If this was any other subject, all we'd have to do is consult a list of authoritative texts. Evidence would be presented, and a rational consensus would ensue. I have a feeling that this would be a futile exercise in this case. As an avid and faithful reader, I can only cringe. Best, Miguel Chavez (talk) 09:25, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

"you're going to piss their teachers off". Their teachers should be worrying about the kids' incompetence with basic spelling and grammar, rather than which of two legitimate, established stylistic conventions they adhere to. Ilkali (talk) 10:47, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Reading the bit about pissing the teachers off it occurred to me that these teachers really haven't that right. If teachers want students to use the US style, surely they'd have to teach it since by no means does it follow logically that something not part of the quote belongs within. If students pick up what they see here and copy it, that'll show the teachers that there's a gap to be filled and give them the opportunity to reinforce the crazy illogical system that the good folks at Harvard peddle. Better still, if enough students copy WP, US academia might swing toward logic ... But, no, WP is no tool to be used for pushing some style or other, however, we are free to adopt one and the one we've adopted by rational consensus is the logical style. Should we worry too much about WP's influence of American academia ... wouldn't we be overrating ourselves? I'm sure America has enough inertia to continue down its current illogical punctuation path in spite of us. There are worse things than logical punctuation on the net for kids to copy. JIMp _talk·cont 10:21, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

This seems to be just another case of the phenomenon described above under #Too many people with too much spare time?, anyway. [1][2] --Hans Adler (talk) 10:43, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Hate to point out the obvious, but this coming from a person reading the Wikipedia Manual of Style, clicking on the discussion tab, and reading the pedantic discussion therein. Miguel Chavez (talk) 19:42, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The teachers are right because that's the standard everyone has agreed to (minus the folks on the island). It's funny to me because you hear over and over again that Wikipedia wants to be considered a "serious encyclopedia," and it's this kind of make-your-own-rules crap that makes it look like a joke.

In science, as well as other academic disciplines, there is a process called peer review. That means if you think you have a better idea you, as a professional, submit your idea to be reviewed by a panel of experts also trained in that field of expertise. If your idea's have some semblance of merit it is published. And it is through publication and argument that one's ideas can become orthodoxy. When this happens — and the argument has been won — you start to see your ideas published in encyclopedias, textbooks, and taught in the lower grade levels. This is how the academic process is done. Not so here. If the "logical" style passes the peer review process and manages to become incorporated into most English style manuals then I will concede. But until then everyone of you who thinks that "this", is the right way to use punctuation is wrong. And of course there are worst things in the world to worry about (red herring), but anyone who has a grasp of basic grammar and punctuation can't help but get irritated. At the very least there should be a warning that the Wikipedia MoS departs from most English style guides. Best, Miguel Chavez (talk) 19:42, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The internet is not America. Again: The internet is not America. Calling a stylistic convention "wrong" because it does not match what you were taught completely misses the point of this page, which is to provide guidance to editors in the face of multiple regionally or contextually prevailing conventions. Ilkali (talk) 21:14, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The Internet may not be America, but the readers of the English language Wikipedia overwhelmingly are. If we use American spellings in articles (which we do in most), then we need to be consistent. DreamGuy (talk) 22:38, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm a firm believer in the peer review process. I know I don't have a doctorate in English, and even if I did I wouldn't have the hubris to think that I could speak for my entire professional community. As it is, a preponderance of English speakers, English departments, professional writers, and publishing houses adopt American conventions of punctuation. As mentioned previously, several major British newspapers have even adopted the American style. You may believe you are in the right, but at least be humble enough to admit you are on the losing side. This whole discussion reminds me of the Intelligent Design crowed who can't win the debate in academic circles so the peddle their ideas online and try to sneak them through the back door. Best, Miguel Chavez (talk) 01:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget that the American style was originally the British style, and that the problem comes from the US and Canada (unlike Australia) not following the reform that happened in the UK. A recent change towards the logical system doesn't look like "on the losing side" to me. Also it seems to me that roughly half the native speakers of English live in the logical quotation area, and many of the others prefer logical quotation anyway. And then we have the fact that the Chicago Manual of Style, while clearly preferring the American style, admits there are precision problems and permits logical style where these matter. This affects some (admittedly few) of our articles.

Also the reason for the American system is that it looks better in conventional typography. Given the generally abysmal quality of web typography both on screen and in print, this is simply irrelevant in our context. --Hans Adler (talk) 01:52, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm curious as to how you arrived at your sum. I have it by at least a factor of three, possibly four. And if you sample published volumes and periodicals, as well as guidelines adopted by educational institutions and publishing houses, I would imagine the figure rises significantly higher. Best, Miguel Chavez (talk) 06:28, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

You still don't seem to understand the nature of the exercise here. The point isn't to decide which style convention is "correct", because that doesn't exist. The point is to select one according to our goals as a global encyclopedia, and it was decided that logical quotation best meets those goals. Ilkali (talk) 08:41, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I think I understand well enough. Some of you folks think you have come up with an improved style of punctuation. It's not quite the American system and it's not quite the British system. It's sort of a bastard child of both. So impressed with yourselves you have dubbed it the "logical system." It is not accepted by most of the world's academic institutions and used by very few if any writers, scholars and editors. But this does not dissuade you one bit. Rather than adopt a well recognized system used by universities and publishing houses, you just mandate that all users on Wikipedia must conform to the style which you happen find more intuitively pleasing or logical, at least to your mind. Never mind that most users will either reject it as sloppy punctuation, or worst still, adopt it in classrooms only to be marked down by their instructors. You say there is no correct way to use punctuation. Well not quite. There is, depending on your geographic location and the system you adopt. Most systems adopt the American style in way of punctuation. As such the Wikipedia MoS should reflect this, or at least be flexible enough to allow editors the freedom to make the decision themselves by not mandating preference. The fairest solution would be a compromise of sorts. Outline the differences in punctuation by the competing styles and let the editors decide which is more suitable for their prospective article. Best, Miguel Chavez 23:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

"Some of you folks think you have come up with an improved style of punctuation". ...What? You think logical quotation was invented on Wikipedia?

"you just mandate that all users on Wikipedia must conform to the style which you happen find more intuitively pleasing or logical". Oh, shut up. If you want to actually discuss the merits of different styles of quotation and how closely they match Wikipedia's core aims then I'm happy to engage you on that. I'm not interested in hissy fits. Ilkali (talk) 10:57, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

No, he means that the combination of "logical" punctuation and the use of double quotation marks (as default) is novel. I don't think we are the first instance, by any means; but British style guides do recommend single quotes, and the CMOS does say that British style should have single quotes if used, presumably to keep the comma near the preceding word. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Our choice of quotation glyphs is as unrelated to our choice of internal vs external punctuation as is our choice of color vs colour. The idea that this is about British vs American style is a persistent error. Ilkali (talk) 17:17, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Septentrionalis. I appreciate you handling my light work. You got it spot on. Miguel Chavez 08:06, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Double quotes are preferred for technical reasons (when searching for abcd the internal search engine will find "abcd" but it won't find 'abcd'); I wouldn't object to allow single quotes in articles written in British English if/when that is fixed. --A. di M. (formerly Army1987) — Deeds, not words. 10:25, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Confused as to how that would affect a search? Best, Miguel Chavez 00:21, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Because search engines will see single quotes as part of the words being searched for, and double quotes as string delimiters. Since the quotes can always be changed after you cut and paste into the search engine, this is a weak argument, but it should be in the quideline. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:54, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

One of Wikipedia's core aims is civility. It has been plain for years that this rule (especially as it now stands, without acknowledgment that MOS is making a choice) is not conducive to civility. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

A handful of editors established this some time ago. Some of them belong to the Dominions, where schoolmarms seem to be very fierce about "logical" punctuation; one of them was an American engineer who posted at length about his grudge against his liberal arts professors (they took off marks putting commas outside). It has the advantage of presenting quotations precisely as written; on the other hand, it is prone to error, and open to difficult cases (especially when the only source uses the other convention). A rational MOS would say this, and let editors choose - as long as each article was consistent. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:39, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. Miguel Chavez (talk) 19:53, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

In articles using American spelling we use American punctuation rules. I don't care if the MoS currently says otherwise. It won't be the first nor the last time the MoS says something silly that the vast majority of editors just ignore outright. On articles using British spellings by all mean use British punctuation rules, otherwise no. DreamGuy (talk) 22:38, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

"In articles using American spelling we use American punctuation rules". Makes no sense. The two are completely separate things. Ilkali (talk) 22:44, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

As a general rule of thumb, this seems to be the sensible position. And it's a policy I have adopted and one I think most editors here on Wikipedia have adhered to. Articles discussing British subjects, like the British ethologist Richard Dawkins for example, ought to employ British parochialisms. Articles which touch upon general subjects, however, ought to employ general rules of punctuation, as defined by groups like the MLA, APA and other reputable sources. Best, Miguel Chavez (talk) 00:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Do you really expect anyone to take your comments seriously if you use POV language like this? Johnbod (talk) 13:29, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

My only expectation is for people to address the arguments being made. However I'm a little confused as to why I should behave as though I didn't have a point of view when I clearly do? Best Miguel Chavez (talk) 02:39, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

The long-standing consensus is that articles with no obvious relation to any one place can be written in any dialect of English, provided that it is consistent and that idioms which can be easily misunderstood by speakers of other dialects are avoided. The fact that there are style guides for American English which are reputable sources doesn't make British rules "parochialisms": there also are style guides for British English which are reputable sources. --A. di M. (formerly Army1987) — Deeds, not words. 09:55, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

No, but insisting on only British format everywhere is parochialism, and impractical parochialism; too many of our editors do not use it, or have never heard of it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

"too many of our editors do not use it, or have never heard of it". I don't think you get the point of style guides. If we were just describing what our editors already do, this page wouldn't be a guideline. Ilkali (talk) 17:17, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Guidelines are what our editors generally agree on doing; see WP:Consensus (and indeed WP:Policies and guidelines). There is no point to a volunteer organization, which (by policy) accepts anyone, having anything else; nothing else is enforceableable, useful, or conducive to civiility. (There are other ends the futile effort at prescription can serve, chiefly ego-inflation, but few of them are socially useful; do any of them contribute to the encyclopedia?) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:45, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

"Guidelines are what our editors generally agree on doing [...]. There is no point to a volunteer organization, which (by policy) accepts anyone, having anything else". It doesn't seem like people can agree not to vandalise pages or edit war, either. Let's get rid of the associated policies. Ilkali (talk) 18:33, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, that is a perfect example. There is general agreement (including both sides of the edit war, talking about each other) that edit-warring should not be done; so we have policy against it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

No, most people have an "unless I'm right" clause in their internal WP:3RRs. Assuming I'm right about that, should we write it into the real policy?

Guidelines aren't there to predict or describe or affirm what people already do. They're supposed to guide. They're there to say "in situation X, do Y". The fact that not everybody will automatically follow the guideline, or that some might reject it, does not negate its purpose or its value. Ilkali (talk) 20:03, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Does it matter, then, what they guide or whether editors generally agree with it? Reductio ad absurdum does work, of course, on the answer No; but I don't want to leap to a conclusion. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:43, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Guidelines are supposed to show what the best current practices are. (I've read that somewhere, but I don't remember where.) --A. di M. (formerly Army1987) — Deeds, not words. 10:25, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

The problem is the consensus you mentioned is not being followed through here. The MoS is explicitly endorsing one style while rejecting the other, even though the one being rejected is far better recognized and implemented more often by most academic institutions. I described the British system as a parochialism because that's what it is: a localized phenomenon. Although many English speakers use it, its use is still in the minority. Best, Miguel Chavez (talk) 08:25, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

See my comments to PManderson about what a style guide is and isn't. Our job here isn't to describe what our editors already do. There are more concerns here than just who's in the majority.

I would also point out that logical quotation is not restricted to Britain. Scholars of all countries often use it for its precision, like we do here. Ilkali (talk) 08:43, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Well this is a public encyclopedia, and decisions ought to be made by majority consensus. A cursory look at the articles seems to favor the American style. As for "logical quotation," its use in public literature is exceedingly narrow, even in the scientific literature, which prefers the APA style. Miguel Chavez 00:21, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

"decisions ought to be made by majority consensus". No, that's stupid.

"its use in public literature is exceedingly narrow, even in the scientific literature, which prefers the APA style". Are you still pretending choice of glyphs and choice of internal-vs-external are somehow the same thing? Ilkali (talk) 19:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

First things first. If you are under the impression that you and your cadre have ownership of this article you are terribly mistaken. This is an open project, and as long as our contributions are reasonable (and supported by mainstream academic scholarship), then they ought to be considered and decided upon by consensus. My opinion on this issue is simple. Wikipedia ought to adopt general and broadly recognized styles of punctuation. I believe this principle, although unspoken, is why we prefer American preferences of spelling. Not because the American style is superior, but that it will be recognized by a preponderance of Wikipedia users. I understand that this issue is controversial—oddly enough—so I'm willing to give in to plurality, and put up for consideration that the Wikipedia MoS allow editors the flexibility to choose for themselves which style is most appropriate for their prospective articles. To the second point. When I stated that logical quotation was "exceedingly narrow," I meant just that, and nothing more. That the practice of placing a punctuation marks outside the quotation when the punctuation mark is not part of the sentence, and inside the quotation when the punctuation mark is part of the quoted speech is disproportionately narrow as compared to the style which is generally used on the North American continent and adopted by most editors and publishing houses. This with the fact that most academic bodies adopt the American style, makes for a persuasive argument in favor of adopting inside punctuation. The type of glyph was not really an issue with me, as my argument is completely consistent with Wikipedia choice of glyph. But there is something to the fact that the odd coupling of styles reduces it further still. Best, Miguel Chavez (talk) 05:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

"as long as our contributions are reasonable (and supported by mainstream academic scholarship), then they ought to be considered and decided upon by consensus". Nobody's criticised your contributions on the basis of anything but their merit. Don't cry persecution just because people aren't agreeing with you.

"we prefer American preferences of spelling". No we don't.

"I'm willing to give in to plurality, and put up for consideration that the Wikipedia MoS allow editors the flexibility to choose for themselves". Style guides exist for a reason. Logical quotation is plainly superior for our purposes, and I've yet to see any coherent arguments that our explicit preference for it has ever caused any harm, other than to the sensitivities of stylo-dominionistic Americans. Ilkali (talk) 11:54, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

"Don't cry persecution just because people aren't agreeing with you." First, "persecution" was never at issue. This is about the possessiveness and arrogance on your part to refuse amending the guidelines in lieu of reasonable (and ongoing) dissent. Second, I think I've easily split the difference here. After all, I'm not the one getting all bothered about consensus. Third, I think our preference for American spelling is quite evident, and I'll leave it for readers to decide for themselves. Third, you've done nothing to address my arguments other than go on about how "plainly superior" logical quotation is. Never mind that most of the academic and literary world disagrees with you. But what do they know, right? In any case, my argument has nothing to do with which style is theoretically superior (the answer is none). The argument is based on four factors. 1, which style is better recognized by (English speaking) Wikipedia readers? 2, which style is in accordance with general principles of academic convention? 3, which style is backed by the preponderance of editors and publishing houses? 4, could the coupling of American and British styles confuse students on the North American continent, thus leading to the adoption of a style which will be rejected by their institutions of learning? Your arguments so far have been: so what, shut up, and this has been decided long ago -- go away. So far, not so impressed. Best, Miguel Chavez (talk) 20:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

"[R]easonable [...] dissent" – that's exactly the key problem. So far there have been no reasonable arguments from your side. And that's why you currently don't have a chance to get the MOS changed. --Hans Adler 17:21, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Excuse my honesty, but you wouldn't know reason if it hit you in the face. Miguel Chavez (talk) 06:48, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Mchavez: please take a look at WP:CIVIL. I believe you owe Hans Adler an apology. Tony (talk) 13:49, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

If Hans was in any way hurt by my comment he has my sincerest apologies (and sympathy). It was wrong of me to imply that reason would assault him, and such an assault would thereby go unnoticed or unrecognized. Best, Miguel Chavez (talk) 23:19, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, is there some reason to suppose (as this thread seems mostly inclined to) that the choice of logical quotation was made arbitrarily on the basis of personal style preferences, rather than for the reasons that the page itself actually states? Pi zero (talk) 00:12, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Here's the tirade about liberal artsy stuff, anyway.

The reasons the page states are valid, as far as they go; so are the reasons Miguel Chavez would urge on the other side; so are the cautions of the Chicago Manual of Style (§6.10) that the British style requires extreme authorial precision and occasional decisions by the editor or typesetter. We should state all of them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

The purpose of writing (whether in English or any other human language) is to be understood. Thus clarity of communication is paramount, and should decide any issues about grammatical rules. Consequently, I put punctuation inside when it is part of what I am quoting, or outside when it is part of my sentence structure. Thus one might have a period inside the quotation and also one outside it, if the quotation is a full declarative sentence and forms the last word in one of my declarative sentences. For example, one might say

Byzantine Emperor Manuel II Palaiologos said "Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.".

I do not care whether we call this American, British, or logical. It is the system I use. JRSpriggs (talk) 00:51, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

That is actually logical, but it is neither of the systems under discussion. This shows the ineffectiveness of the present prohibition.

Again, who opposes acknowledging that there are at least two systems (since Wikipedia is doubtless actually using both) and describing the reasons to choose one or the other? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

What about:

In British English, punctuation marks are placed inside the quotation marks only if they are part of the quoted text:

Arthur said, "The situation is deplorable and unacceptable." (The period is part of the quoted text.)

Arthur said that the situation was "deplorable". (The period is not part of the quoted text.)

In American English, commas and periods are normally placed inside the quotation marks regardless of whether they are part of the quoted text:

Arthur said that the situation was "deplorable."

Nevertheless, the British style can also be used in American English in scientific and technical contexts where the standard American style would be misleading:

In the vi text editor, a line can be deleted from the file by typing "dd". (Putting the period inside the quotation marks would suggest that it also must be typed, but that would delete two lines.)

--A. di M. (formerly Army1987) — Deeds, not words. 09:55, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

"The British" or "American format" might be better. Americans do use the British style, sometimes; and conversely. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Sounds pretty good. Miguel Chavez (talk) 08:13, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

We have a clear guideline here. It is generally accepted, and it works. PLEASE leave it alone. See #Too many people with too much spare time? above. Thank you. Finell (Talk) 01:17, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

If it were generally accepted, this small section wouldn't attract complaints every other month. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:00, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Not necessarily. There are plenty of Wikipedians who will argue about anything, and especially about standards. Finell (Talk) 13:01, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Granted. But if that were all that were going on, there'd be an argument about every section, because the content wouldn't matter. But that's not the case; show me the last argument about the section on Celestial bodies, although it is open to criticism. This section, however, justifiably annoys people, and should be revised closer to WP:ENGVAR, even if we choose to express a preference for "logical" quotation. . Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:35, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

As the project page states, the standard is based on precision: "it is used by Wikipedia both because of the principle of minimal change, and also because the method is less prone to misquotation, ambiguity, and the introduction of errors in subsequent editing.". That is also why it is called logical quotation. It has nothing to do with WP:ENGVAR, and adding WP:ENGVAR to the explanation would muddle something that is now clear. Finell (Talk) 22:02, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

That is the (fairly feeble) argument for it; and editors should indeed consider it. The "imprecision" consists of the fact that some readers, faced with the other system, which uses ," as a compound sign, will be parochial enough to read the single comma as part of the quotation although it need not be. Editors should be aware of that possibility, and adopt "logical" punctuation when it will be a problem - or recast to avoid the comma; but it's a single comma. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:46, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

The reference to WP:ENGVAR does deswerve clarification: I do not mean that we should adapt quotation systems to the national variety of English used. We should, when there are two commonly used systems of typography in English, mention that there are two, and discourage switching between them save for food reasons and by consensus. Engvar does that for color/colour; we should do it more widely. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:46, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

"If it were generally accepted, this small section wouldn't attract complaints every other month." The last time an objection to logical quotation was raised was six months ago, by you (in a discussion of timewasting complaints). Prior to that there was a discussion in August 2008 (again involving you); and prior to that, there was a discussion in May 2008, again involving you. That certainly adds up to far less than a complaint "every other month", as you must be aware as a participant in the last three unsuccessful and frequently-rejected "challenges". chocolateboy (talk) 23:18, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

• When I see this come up, I tell those who object that they are not alone, and attempt to give the reasons that this page should, like other Wikipedia pages, give both sides of the story, as I have done here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:59, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

This debate is ridiculous. If editors want to use the most well known system of punctuation, which is adopted by most universities, books, newspapers and periodicals then they should. Miguel Chavez 00:21, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Good luck with that. [3][4] chocolateboy (talk) 01:27, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

That small edit is actually how a came to find out about this unusual policy of yours. I find it, well, odd that an article dealing exclusively with American popular culture should be so infused with British parochialisms. Miguel Chavez (talk) 02:27, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

• I should remind those who wave WP:POINT around: it prohibits doing actions which you do not support, or which damage the encyclopedia, to make a point. Doing actions which you do support, and which help the encyclopedia, despite a guideline is WP:IAR; that is supported by policy. However, those who do this must state what benefit they see, and may be reversed unless supported by local consensus. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:50, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

¶ For whatever little it may be worth, I crossed the Atlantic thrice between the ages of 6 and 11, ending up in the U.S. with a mild chauvinistic prejudice in favour of British style & spelling. But sometimes American practice makes more sense to me on a relatively objective logical basis and sometimes British. I think American double-quotes are far better because they avoid double-takes when an apostrophe (prime, etc.) is encountered either in the middle of a quotation or closely outside one. [The bakers' son swore that ‘when I visited Goldsmiths', they didn't have the goods’ that had been described.] That's still a problem with apostrophes near an enclosed quotation, but those are less common. But I don't like introducing punctuation that isn't in the original, no matter what the aesthetic advantages might be, because it can either mislead the reader or impose on him or her the burden of trying to reconstruct what the original looked like. On the other hand, if you're quoting a whole sentence that ends with a full-stop/period (or would, if it were written down from speech) then by almost the very same logic, leave it inside the quotation marks. This rule, by the way, is almost imperative (from my point of view) for other stops such as exclamation points [!] and question/interrogation marks [?] because doing otherwise could distort the import of the original quotation; so why not follow it for periods/full-stops and commas? —— Shakescene (talk) 18:15, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll admit it. I sort of hope logical punctuation is eventually adopted by the academic community -- even though it's aesthetically inferior with its lack of symmetry and uniformity -- but until that day comes I'm going to stick with "mainstream" academic convention. Maybe it's because I'm a first born, and studies show that we tend to be less rebellious. I suppose that also explains why I continue to use Windows. Best, Miguel Chavez (talk) 09:38, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I do not think we should call the British system "logical." It biases people against American punctuation by implying that it is illogical. It's not more logical; it's just a different way of solving an old typographical problem. It's perfectly logical to spell "color" without a U, but if I'm writing an article about London wall paintings, I'd best use London spelling.

I propose that we instead refer to the British punctuation rule as it applies to commas and periods as "the stop rule" or "the stop system" because it relies on the location of the stop within the sentence. It's descriptive, nearly self-explanatory and, hopefully, won't tick anyone off.

If the matter of British or American punctuation is being revisited, then here are my two cents: Why not use the guideline that is already in place for spelling? Articles that are about specifically American or British topics use the spelling that more closely relates to the subject matter, and articles that don't apply to either stick with the system established by the original contributor.Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Is it "aesthetically inferior"? Isn't that in the eye of the beholder? As for calling it "logical", this is no bias against Americans: it is logical. What is part of the quote goes inside; what is not doesn't. What could be more logical? As has been noted in this and prior discussions on the topic we have a different situation from US verses Commonwealth spelling. American punctuation changes the quote this is why it has been judged inappropriate. JIMp _talk·cont 21:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Calling one system "logical" implies that its alternative is illogical. For example, factions in the abortion debate imply that their opponents are "pro-death" or "anti-choice." Another way to mitigate this is to give the American system a name of its own and use both in the article, such as in an article that refers to both the pro-life and pro-choice factions by their own selected names (or an article that refers to the two systems as "British" vs. "American" or as "logical" vs. "consistent," etc.). As for what could be more logical, it can be argued that it is more logical to treat periods and commas consistently as opposed to switching back and forth. The name "logical," with regard to the stop rule, is arbitrary. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

If a style were called by any other name, it would smell just as logical ... or consistent ... Well, the American style is illogical. To put something within inverted commas regardless of whether it is part of the quote is illogical. This is no anti-American bias nor is it arbitary. Nor do I see how logic could lead us to the idea that we should prefer the kind of "consistency" involved in putting fullstops and commas (and what about other punctuation marks?) within the quote regardless of whether they belong there. Consistency, on the other hand, it might be argued, leads us directly to logical punctuation for what could be more consistant than having everything within the inverted commas being part of the quote and everthing outside not? I'd thus argue that logical quotation is more consistant or conforms to a higher level of consistency that the alternative. So to use the term consistent to describe the American style and thus imply that the logical style is inconsistent would not be correct. The term æsthetic punctuation is sometimes used but beauty is in the eye of the beholder (and I can name you one beholder who see nothing pretty here). There is, however, another name which is often used for the American style: typesetters punctuation since it was the early typesetters who came up with this style for practical reasons, reasons which no longer apply. JIMp _talk·cont 18:14, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

It is not illogical and calling it so offends me deeply. As you've just demonstrated with the word "consistent," words can apply or not apply to something depending on how the reasoning is worked out. Your argument against the logic of American punctuation would only hold water if were not understood that using a period or comma to end a quote is just part of the quoting process. It is. And in American English, full stops and commas are put there because they do belong there.

I wouldn't object to calling the stop rule "technical punctuation," because it is used in technical documents. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:32, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Two points.

• Logical here means "using the logical status of the punctuation as a basis for deciding where to put it", so the use of that term has nothing whatever to do with whether or not it makes sense to use that logical status as the basis for the decision. (I acutally do think it makes a lot of sense to do so in Wikipedia, because it maximizes information delivered to the reader, and delivering information to the reader is the mission of Wikipedia; but I digress.) Since logical here doesn't mean "making sense", but rather "using information about logical status", it's not at all clear that it's even meaningful to talk about what is the "opposite" of logical, and even if there were such a thing as its opposite, that opposite wouldn't be "illogical".

• None of the other systems that have been mentioned here is "opposite" to logical quotation, so in calling it logical quotation there is no implication that any of these other systems is "the opposite of logical", even if there were such a thing as "the opposite of logical" in this situation (which there isn't).

Pi zero (talk) 00:17, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Calling one system "logical" implies that the others are less logical or illogical entirely. It might be nice if it didn't, but it does. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:48, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, no. You have inferred such a suggestion. Inference is what you bring to it, implication is what the originator brought to it. Recognizing that you like reliable sources (whatever their limitations in a discussion such as this one), do you have any reliable sources saying that the term "logical quotation" was chosen for what you are reading into it, rather than for what I am reading into it (or for some other reason)? Pi zero (talk) 23:39, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

No, but it's a pretty reasonable assumption to make. And even if the slight was made absent-mindedly, it's still there. There are plenty of people who say insulting, insensitive or offensive things without realizing it until after the fact. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

It's not all that reasonable an assumption (even if one does entirely set aside WP:AGF, which really oughtn't be set aside here since presumably only Wikipedians patronize the MOS). The assumption would be that the name "logical quotation" was chosen in order to suggest that that style makes more sense than the British or American style. That would be a spiteful reason for choosing the name; to assume it, one would have to also assume that the proponents either defied, or served with cunning deception, their obvious motive not to offend patrons of the other styles. Moreoever, there is a straightforward rational motivation at hand for the name, and the style was apparently adopted for a rational reason, so it would be a gratuitous complication — violating Occam's Razor — to suppose that the name wasn't chosen for the available rational reason, but instead for a spiteful one. Pi zero (talk) 05:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I said it was "aesthetically inferior" because under Wikipedia's current style guidelines punctuation jumps in and out of quotation marks depending on the cited source material. This gives the articles an overall lack of consistency (and makes it stubbornly difficult to copy edit—unless you're fortunate enough to have possession of the primary source material). You're quite right to point out that "beauty is in the eye of the beholder," however psychologists have accumulated enormous amounts of data which show that symmetry is a fundamental factor in general perceptions of beauty. I don't want to make much of this point, but rather defend my comment as at least arguable. Secondly, I don't really care one way or another if proponents of the British style wish to call their style "logical quotation," "logical punctuation," or whatever. It seems obviously self serving, but it honestly doesn't bother me one bit. My problem is that it breaks with most academic convention,† and makes us look like we don't know what we're doing. Best, Miguel Chavez.

† [For example, encyclopedias such as Britannica, Encarta, and World Book. Style guides and language associations, such as: MLA Style Manual, APA Publication Manual, Chicago Manual of Style, APSA Style Manual, AMA Manual of Style, The Associated Press guide to Punctuation, U.S. Government Printing Office Style Manual (2008, p. 217), The Canadian Style: A Guide to Writing and Editing (1997, p. 148), International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, American Institute of Physics' AIP Style Manual (1990, p. 12), and the The Gregg Reference Manual, the foremost business manual. Lastly punctuation reference volumes such as: The McGraw-Hill desk reference by K. D. Sullivan (2006, p. 52), The New Oxford guide to Writing by Thomas S. Kane (1994, p. 278), Webster's New World Punctuation by Geraldine Woods (2005, p. 68), The Blue Book of Grammar and Punctuation by Jane Straus, Quotation Marks: Teaching the Basics by Susan Collins, The McGraw-Hill Handbook of English Grammar by Mark Lester, The New York Times Manual of Style and Usage by Allan M. Siegal, The New York Times Guide to Essential Knowledge by New York Times Staff (p. 788), Punctuation by Jennifer DeVere Brody, Better punctuation in 30 Minutes a Day by Ceil Cleveland, The Copyeditor's Handbook by Amy Einsohn (p. 111) which states: "All principal style manuals except for the CBE recommend what is called American Style."] Miguel Chavez (talk) 08:28, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Chavez, I agree with many of the points you've made below, specifically that actual usage of punctuation in articles does vary, that the "consensus" on the stop rule could be something of a self-fulfilling prophecy and that the consensus for changing Wikipedia's policy has not yet been met. However, I don't think that Finell has "abandoned" American style so much as that he is able to accept a guideline even if he doesn't like it, a very useful ability on a site like this one. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:48, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Sure, if the rule says to do something, it's logical to do so. The question is whether the rule itself is logical. Yes, there is beauty in symmetry (or at least for most beholders).

• Here's your "symmetry."
• Here's your "symmetry".

Are you telling us that the first of these is more symmetric? The second has the inverted commas neatly enclosing the word. In the first you've got this full stop in the way. JIMp _talk·cont 22:22, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I was referring to the symmetry of the article, and that with logical quotation the full stops jump in and out of the inverted commas. Best, Miguel Chavez (talk) 22:45, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I do happen to find the first line more symmetric, but I don't think that aesthetics should be at the top of our list of things to consider. Try this: The so-called logical system was invented for technical documents, so it might be useful in articles that cover technical subjects, but why are we using it on articles that don't need it? The American rule is only confusing if it's not understood that using periods and commas is part of the quotation process. In American English, it is quite understood.

One of the cardinal rules of writing is "write for your audience," corollary: "write for your subject matter." We should use the system that is most appropriate to the subject matter. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Let’s all take a step back here for a moment.

First, it looks like some people^{[weasel words]} here are misunderstanding what “logical quotation” is. It is a constructed grammatical reform that is neither American nor British.

Second, I see talk of democracy from the side in favor of ditching the current rule, except the participants so far in this discussion currently appear to be roughly 8-5 in favor of keeping it… There’s also been some talk of there being more American Wikipedians than British ones, but a quick glance at the user categories shows there are nearly 5% fewer users in us+ca than au+sa+gb+nz+sco (I can’t seem to find any recent log statistics, which would hopefully be far more accurate). One thing that you have to remember is that outside North America, nearly everybody speaks British English or a variant thereof.

Third, I see arguments in opposition to logical quotes outside technical articles, but isn’t consistency what matters? As mentioned in the above debate on dashes, the MoS is here to unify – not divide. Otherwise, it would end up abdicating to individual WikiProjects, and everything would be in (relative) chaos. And, if we then pick just one style, shouldn’t it reflect the fact that logical style doesn’t materially hurt general articles, but that the reverse is not true?

I do think the American style is more aesthetically pleasing, however (while I feel good typography is very important) precision trumps aesthetics. If you want to consider ,” a combined glyph, submit a proposal to the Unicode Consortium. Then, assuming it’s accepted, we can take up this topic again in 20 years when the new character is widely supported… Alternatively, you could create a new properly-licensed default font for Wikipedia with a tweaked ,” kernpair and push for it to be included in all major operating systems. That would probably only take 10 years if you’re successful.  ;)

Wulf (talk) 05:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Your first example of logical style shouldn't have an extra period after the closing double-quote; for that quoted complete sentence, all three styles agree. Pi zero (talk) 06:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Responding to Wulf's comment, "Third, I see arguments in opposition to logical quotes outside technical articles, but isn’t consistency what matters?" the answer is no. With regard to American vs. British spelling, propriety and applicability to subject matter were considered more important than consistency over Wikipedia as a whole. Wikipedia's guidelines assert that articles should be consistent within themselves, but consistency throughout Wikipedia is not always necessary and sometimes not desirable. We've already seen that this kind of inconsistency does not cause chaos. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

With regard to ," they don't need to be a combined glyph. The argument against the American system is that it supposedly causes confusion. However, with the exception of urls and the like, the addition of a period or comma can be, within the American system, universally considered part of the process of quoting something. No confusion means no need to use a different system. I could see the case for using the technical style on articles about chemical compounds, but articles about George Washington or the American Civil War would be best served by American styles. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The precision you speak of is actually a good reason not to consider using logical quotation at all, for you are demanding a level of precision well beyond what you can expect from amateur contributors. Most people can faithfully render the words of a quotation, but you'd be surprised by how many people stumble on simple matters like punctuation. Very few know the technical differences between styles. I see a lot of people applying punctuation as though it were only a matter of "in or out," without any regard to the original source material. The rest I'm assuming probably have no clue, and just follow general consensus. The problem with logical quotation is you need the primary source material to copy edit it, and we have no reason to expect that our contributors are using—or are even aware of—the rules and guidelines regarding logical quotation. Which will lead to errors in citation (thereby making it less accurate). Logical quotation might work well for a professional journal, but it's asking far too much from non-professional writers. The advantage of the American system is anyone can copy edit it! And as long as you understand the grammatical rule, that punctuation inside fragmented quotations cannot be considered part of the original source material—which I imagine most good readers do—then the typographical style is rendered no less accurate or inaccurate than it's competitors.

Second, I think the overwhelming consensus is that there is no consensus. In any case, it should be clear that "logical quotation" is quite controversial, and that the "higher level of consensus" needed for style guidelines has not been reached. As for user-logs, the sample size of people who categorize their geographic location is both small, selective, and nonrandom to be of any use.

Perhaps we should all take a step forward. Best, Miguel Chavez (talk) 21:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I would agree that there is overwhelmingly no consensus for change. I would also agree that there is clear evidence that whether to put trailing punctuation inside or outside the quotation marks is quite controversial — though I see no particular reason to think that the level of controversy surrounding the convention now endorsed by the MOS is any greater than the level of controversy that would surround any other position that the MOS cound adopt on that issue (even the "no position" position). There is at least one reason, namely the history of the MOS on the issue, to suspect that any other position would be more controversial than the current one. Pi zero (talk) 22:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

That seems to be the only (and preferred) argument for keeping logical quotation in the MoS: it's been there for so long. I prefer to decide things based on substantive reasons. Second, I hope you have not misread my argument. "Higher level" consensus is not needed to replace an existing guideline, it's required to have a guideline at all. Given the practical concerns expressed over this issue--and it's long history of repeated controversy--logical quotation's position as a reputable guideline is dubious at best. Miguel Chavez (talk) 23:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Though I have done so elsewhere, I made no argument here for or against logical quotation. I merely pointed out that there is no evidence supporting your claim about level of controversy, and that in fact there is even some reason to suspect the opposite of your claim.

It is blatantly false that that argument (which I, for one, have not made) is the only argument for keeping logical quotation in the MOS. Even I, a late comer to the discussion mainly occupied with clearing away side issues (hoping thereby to facilitate access to the substance of the matter), have mentioned a substantive advantage of logical quotation for Wikipedia.

Your claim about the reputation of the guideline is based on reasoning that successfully resisting challenges is a sign of weakness.

Pi zero (talk) 19:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I was being cavalier. It was my (rhetorical) way of expressing my feelings about the quality of the arguments coming from the other side. As for our interpretations of the controversy, I suppose it's a matter of how you look at it. If the preponderance of articles are universally divided (or should I say confused) on the matter, and if the small group of participants here are fairly divided, that is enough to merit using the word controversy. Official policies regarding style should have strong and broad consensus. They should be obvious and reasonable to all (or at least most) thinking people. The simple fact is it isn't so obvious. Indeed there has been great division and much energy spent debating this subject, from many contributors, spanning the long history of its adoption. Why should Wikipedia adopt a style of punctuation rejected by most English speakers, rejected by most academics, most publishers, which remains—under its current rubric—unreferenced by a single style guide? Miguel Chavez (talk) 01:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Chavez, while style guides referring to the technical quotation system are rare, it is possible to find them. I did a few days ago, though I've lost the link. Also, if the American Chemical Association has a style guide, it's probably in there. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

You can call me Miguel. Well, I've run across The ACS Style Guide, but I couldn't remember how it treated other forms of punctuation (besides periods and commas), or how it handled punctuation from quoted material. So I wasn't quite sure if it fell under the rubric of logical quotation (which seems to be the branding of the online community). But I will take a look as soon as I can. Best, Miguel Chavez (talk) 02:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I concur that while technical quotation is not necessarily best for Wikipedia, the level of consensus required to changing the guideline has not yet been met.

However, I do believe that adopting a policy of system-best-suited-to-the-article would be less controversial than the technical-for-all position. It would probably stir up fewer bad feelings because the proponents of each system would feel as if they were being given their due, their proper domain plus original articles. We don't see people arguing over British vs. American spelling, do we? But just think about the fights there would be on this page if the MoS endorsed American spelling for all articles! It would make this debate look like a misplaced hat at bridge club. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:08, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Given how divisive this issue is, I have staked out a more moderate position than the one I think you attribute to me. My position is that the Wikipedia MoS drop it's current policy on the issue of inside/outside punctuation, explain the advantages of each system, and let the editors decide for themselves, so long as the article remains consistent. As per the MoS: "An overriding principle is that style and formatting should be consistent within a Wikipedia article, though not necessarily throughout Wikipedia as a whole." This is also Wikipedia's policy with regard to variant forms of British/American spelling, which has worked splendidly so far. Best, Miguel Chavez (talk) 04:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Early on in this discussion, someone asked, "What were you thinking?" I'd like to contribute by explaining why I am for such a grammar reform in this case. I'm a software engineer. In programming, there is a big difference between what is inside quotes and what isn't. Fudging the quote's contents to look prettier is simply not acceptable to an engineer who sees the meaning as-stated. If the quote doesn't contain a period, it shouldn't be tucked inside the quotes anyway. The common typesetting rules have to do with the appearance of typesetter's curved quotes and commas as well as full stops. Given that background, (1) Wikipedia was created by software engineers, and (2) the style does typically does not use curved quotes. I recall magazines adopting logical quoting as a policy twenty years ago, because their audience prefers that. So there is some precedent in that direction, too, in the print publishing industry. Długosz (talk) 16:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

That is why the American system makes exceptions for the types of keyboard inputs that you're describing. For the overwhelming majority of English writing, including encyclopedia-style writing, software-style punctuation is an unnecessary complication.

I've seen a lot of professional and amateur programmers and software engineers favoring this style, but Wikipedia is written for a general audience. For this reason, I believe that British-themed articles should use British punctuation and American-themed articles American punctuation. In those rare cases in which Wikipedia's current style would be beneficial, such as articles about certain chemical compounds and software concepts, I would support it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] The Dispute Tag

• Query Would anyone mind if we remove the "disputed" tag from the project page? Anyone who cares know it's disputed, and I'm tired of referring editors to read about the subject and having them confronted by this banner. --Laser brain (talk) 20:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Unequivocally, yes. First, there is a current discussion about the legitimacy of the guideline, thereby meriting the disputed tag. Second, the tag is an excellent way to bring more contributors into this discussion. As of yet, we only have a handful of participants hammering out the issue, and this policy broadly effects the entire encyclopedia. Third, there are problems associated with the current guidelines, both practical and philosophical, which have not been addressed or resolved. Best, Miguel Chavez (talk) 00:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Sad to say, the tag still belongs there, no matter how tired of it people are. And we should never assume that people already know things just because they seem obvious to those of us who are hip-deep in it. With regard to referring new editors to source material, is there some way we could include a link to appropriate references in or near the tag or in some other reasonably obvious place? Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Added. Think it'll help? Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Miguel Chavez, the reason we have only a handful of participants here is that the vast majority of Wikipedians recognize that this is a longstanding rule of the project, that there are good reasons for it, and that it isn't going to be changed even though an alternative rule would also be defensible. Feel free to keep hammering if you want -- and you do seem to want -- but please recognize the context here. Don't imagine that a straw poll showing something like an 8-to-5 split in favor of your position will support a change in this guideline.

Is there a point at which you would acquiesce in the removal of the tag? or do you envision it as a permanent fixture unless and until you get your way? JamesMLane t c 01:30, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Well ideally I would like to be persuaded, but that may be asking too much. But I can tell you this much. I would like to see one of two things happen. Good arguments coming from the other side. This would also include interesting and thoughtful counter-arguments to the points I and others have raised. I would also like to see the consensus swing in a clear direction. That would be a very good start. Best, Miguel Chavez (talk) 01:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

James--It seems more likely that the vast majority of Wikipedians simply don't know about this rule. Most of them haven't heard of the technical quotation system and simply assume that the stop-rule punctuation is either British or a mistake. In this case, silence is not a vote in favor. I cannot speak for Chavez but it seems appropriate that a dispute tag be removed when the subject is no longer in dispute. That's not the case here. It wouldn't be right to take down the tag just because a few individuals are tired of talking about it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:37, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Darkfrog24, I agree that the vast majority of Wikipedians are completely oblivious to this entire issue. I should have been more specific -- of the Wikipedians who know about the dispute, the vast majority accept the current rule and don't get involved in each new discussion of it that someone starts. In this case, "accept" doesn't mean a vote in favor, but something closer to acquiescence.

Miguel Chavez's response amounts to saying that, in all probability, he thinks the tag should be there permanently. Our side hasn't made arguments that he, personally, considers good, so he'll go on disagreeing, so the section will be perpetually a matter of controversy. (If he ever did secure a change in the guideline, I and others would nevertheless continue to prefer the use of "logical" quotation marks unless persuaded otherwise, so if we applied his standard then the tag would still be a permanent fixture.)

I'm not saying that further discussion is foreclosed just because it's been discussed to death in the past. I do say, however, that at some point the presence of the tag becomes misleading. That some people disagree with the guideline doesn't mean that there's a currently active proposal to change it. JamesMLane t c 09:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

This matter keeps coming up and keeps coming up and keeps coming up. This is a persistently controversial issue. It's not that some people disagree with the guideline, it's that so many people disagree with the guideline once they see it that it's subject to nearly constant question. That's a dispute.

Don't assume that "people who don't know" means "people who wouldn't care if they did know." Most likely, there are plenty of sticklers for proper punctuation and proper guidelines who don't know that this problem is here. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Addendum. I know about this rule and I don't get involved in every new discussion, but that doesn't mean that I accept or approve of it. When I feel like I've said my piece, I leave the field, but I check in every now and again to see if there's anything new to say--like this time--or if the matter is being seriously considered for revision. If you or anyone else is tired of talking about this, then I recommend that you take a similar tack. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree the tag shouldn't be there. There are many policies and guidelines that many people strongly disagree with; we don't go around putting disputed tags on all of them. If I can't convince people that something needs changing (which regrettably is too often the case), I just let it go (as Darkfrog suggests), but without trying to leave a permanent record of my and others' dissatisfaction in the form of a misleading dispute tag. --Kotniski (talk) 12:35, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Kotniski--I certainly don't mean that proponents of technical style should just let it go. I wasn't just letting it go when I took a break; I was taking a break. I mean that 1. there might be more people who care about this matter than the current page reflects 2. if people are tired of the debate, then it's perfectly acceptable for them to switch to lurk mode 3. being tired of the dispute is not a good reason to remove the tag. It's about whether the dispute exists, not whether people are tired of it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:45, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

If we were writing the guideline from scratch, I think there'd be no consensus for any side. There has been a ton of debate on the issue (both recently & historically) & it has drawn many people into it at different times. Because many aren't happy with the way the guideline is now, that tag should be kept. Removing it would not quash debate, but that is the only motive I see for wanting it removed. Clearly, there is room for improvement in the guideline, even if we disagree how that improvement is to be made. --Karnesky (talk) 13:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Removing the tag won't quash debate (though frankly it wouldn't be a bad thing if it did - the debate just goes on in the same circles without getting anywhere new), it would just remove an obstacle to the clarity of the information about what style is currently used in Wikipedia.--Kotniski (talk) 14:24, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Removing the tag would affect the debate by making it look less legitimate than it is. I do not feel that it interferes with the clarity of the MoS. Remember, the tag itself doesn't suggest alternative styles. The MoS itself only talks about Wikipedia's own style. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Responding to Kotniski's comments below, are the other issues as perennial as this one? With regard to plagues, you make a decent point, but we're not talking about whether to put more tags up; we're talking about whether to keep one that's already there. Consensus to add and consensus to remove. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

My problem with the tag is that, as a content reviewer, I constantly refer everyday editors to the MoS. They do not know or care what arguments ensue on the MoS Talk page. They just want to read what to do so they can meet the Featured Article requirement for conforming to the MoS. What are they supposed to do if they come and find a stupid banner over the guideline? They won't know what to do. The guideline can be discussed ad nauseum here, but I ask that the general editing public be spared from the confusion resulting from the disputed tag. If you want to raise awareness, you can always file an RfC. I implore you—there are few enough FAC reviewers as it is. We don't need to make their job more difficult. May I remove the banner? --Laser brain (talk) 19:48, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I took the liberty of creating a new dispute tag in order to address your concerns. Best, Miguel Chavez (talk) 20:24, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)Darkfrog24 says that this question "keeps coming up". I refer to the characterization of the history, given in this thread by chocolateboy on May19, quoting and responding to a statement by Septentrionalis:

"If it were generally accepted, this small section wouldn't attract complaints every other month." The last time an objection to logical quotation was raised was six months ago, by you (in a discussion of timewasting complaints). Prior to that there was a discussion in August 2008 (again involving you); and prior to that, there was a discussion in May 2008, again involving you. That certainly adds up to far less than a complaint "every other month", as you must be aware as a participant in the last three unsuccessful and frequently-rejected "challenges". chocolateboy (talk) 23:18, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll concede that the current guideline doesn't have universal support. No guideline on this point will. The absence of universal support doesn't justify a permanent tag/banner, not even if the dissidents are tireless in raising the same objection.

The specific banner newly created and added by Mchavez reads: "It has been recommended that articles seeking Featured Article status continue to follow the guideline until the issue has been resolved." My comments:

• This isn't a recommendation. It's still the guideline, not just somebody's essay.
• The passive voice should be avoided.
• The guideline is of general applicability, not limited to prospective Featured Articles.
• This banner still gives a false impression that there's a live, ongoing dispute, with a serious proposal being considered for changing the guideline, as opposed to just persistent dissidents. My earlier question still applies: Under what circumstances, if any, would Mchavez and others consent to the removal of the banner? Would it still be there a month from now if nothing momentous has happened?

Meanwhile, to address my specific points, I suggest this alternative wording: "Despite this dispute, the guideline remains in effect unless and until it is altered by consensus." JamesMLane t c 05:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• 1. Chocolateboy's characterization rather misleadingly gives the impression that the objections were raised by a single individual (Septentrionalis). This was shown to be false. They were raised by a great variety of people, as the logs demonstrate. Sometimes regulars jump in (as Septentrionalis did), and sometimes they do not. What the actual point was to highlight Septentrionalis' involvement in these disputes was and fully remains to be mystery to me.
• 2. The question should not be "does the guideline have universal support" (this amounts to a straw man). The question is, does the policy have broad and general support (i.e. "higher level consensus"). If not, it doesn't deserve to be there at all.
• 3. Regarding the banner, it seems now that the issue was never about helping prospective FA editors. Rather, it was about projecting a false sense of consensus and authority to a controversial policy which merits none. It's equivalent to a small (but ever vigilant) majority of editors on the homeopathy page "protecting" it from "tireless [dissidents] raising the same objection." Every topic has an interest group; this one has theirs.
• 4. There also seems to be a sense of entitlement and arrogance on the part of those wishing to keep logical quotation. You even describe our discussion as a false debate, a pretence to a serious discussion which could ever lead to compromise or revisal. Could it be any more clear that someone has made up their mind before reviewing what their peers had to say, or watching how the discussion evolved? The general strategy among the logical quotation proponents seems to be to refrain from engaging the arguments—as this might expose the utter hollowness of their position—and wait out the enemy until he is tired and runs home. I am not entirely blind to it, but I suppose I can respect it in a way.
• 5. Whatever results from this discussion one thing is for certain: it will die a natural death. I do not plan on staying here forever, as my interest in punctuation (though oddly passionate) is not at the top of my personal or intellectual interests.
• 6. Guidelines, as most style guides readily admit, are nothing more than just that: recommendations. I'm curious. What sense of power do you guys actually think you have? Miguel Chavez (talk) 07:45, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

This is a live, ongoing dispute. That being said, the wording, "Despite this dispute, the guideline remains in effect unless and until it is altered by consensus," is fine with me. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Done. Miguel Chavez (talk) 21:06, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your #3 point above, I'm not sure if it's directed at me, but I assure you that my interest in this matter is related to the FA process. One glance at my contributions should show that FAC is my primary arena of interest and I am not an MoS edit warrior or, indeed, editor at all. At any rate, #3 is a fantastic failure of good faith and good form. --Laser brain (talk) 22:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

And, for my part, I have no particular interest in the FA process. Mchavez, your insinuation of duplicity or pretextual argument is unfounded -- Laser brain is being consistent, I'm being consistent, and neither of us is required to be consistent with the other just because we agree on "logical" style. There is no Quotation Mark Cabal that gives all of us our orders.

As for your #4, I'm sorry you've formed an impression of arrogance. Some of the attitudes you attribute to me would border on arrogance if I indeed held them. In fact, however, I didn't call this a false debate. I didn't deny the possibility that there might someday be a revision. I said only that the existence of disagreement didn't justify a permanent tag. As for your modification of your custom-made banner, it's an improvement by not mentioning Featured Articles, but the wording is still misleading. It's not "recommended" (by whom?) that the guideline remain in effect. The guideline does remain in effect until changed. That doesn't mean it can never be changed. That doesn't mean it's absolute (it can be violated in rare circumstance). It just means that, under Wikipedia rules, it remains in effect unless and until changed. What modification of meaning did you intend by inserting this "recommended" phrase into the wording I suggested? JamesMLane t c 23:31, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

First I would like to apologize to LB for the act of misappropriation. That was a bit of carelessness on my part. To Mr. Lane: I didn't create this discussion for the sole purposes of being disagreeable. Following my shock that Wikipedia had adopted such a policy, there was an honest attempt on my part to reach a moderate solution or compromise of sorts. To my disappointment I have been met with scoffs that there could even be room for adjustment or moderation. It's clear that the LQ people won't budge an inch. The general attitude is: stop wasting your time with arguments and just go away; we decided this long ago. If I was some sort of crank I could come to terms with this, and simply blame it on a secret cabal, as you implied. What makes this so frustrating is that my position accords with what most experts have to say, and what is considered standard by most publishers and editors. As for the tag I didn't put it up, nor do I believe it should be a permanent fixture. My position is—and has always been—to discuss the merits of each system (with editors willing to debate the issues point by point), and have a natural consensus arise out of these discussions. Ideally I would like to reach some sort of compromise (however limited) that could put an end this issue from arising again, again, and again and again. To take this tag down in the middle of our debate seems hasty and premature. Best, Miguel Chavez (talk) 01:34, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't characterize it as arrogance, but I have been getting a vibe of, "I am tired of talking, so you must stop talking." As for the case itself, if Wikipedia adopts a system that's considered flat-out wrong by almost every style guide ever written, then it's going to be disputed over and over and over. This is not something that crops up with other Wikipedia policies. The tag reflects what's going on. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:45, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I would classify it as arrogance. Miguel Chavez (talk) 02:09, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

But perhaps it is countereffective to call it so. When Troviatore called American style "stupid," people on both sides of the quotation issue told him to find another way to express himself. You haven't gone so far as that, but in a matter like this one, it's worth going the extra mile to make people feel like they're not being disrespected. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:17, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed your point about using the word "recommended." As per no. 6 on my last reply, this is what style guides do: they offer recommendations. That's why they call them guides after all and not laws or commandments. Each article has its editors, and none of them take orders from you, me, or anyone else. I've been reading quite a number of style guides lately and they are all consistent on this point. When styles differ, they explain the advantages of each system and they offer their recommendations. If this isn't enough, do a search for "recommend" on the Wikipedia MoS and see what you get. Best, Miguel Chavez (talk) 02:09, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad you agree that the banner shouldn't be a permanent fixture. As for your use of "recommend", it's apples and oranges to say that published style guides use the word. They use it to make recommendations about what should be in the users' writing. You're using it to make a recommendation about what should be in the style guide itself. I still don't understand what's intended by "Until the dispute is resolved by consensus, it is recommended that the guideline remain in effect." Recommended by whom and to whom? In particular, I remain unenlightened as to whether you intended your wording to convey a meaning different from "the guideline remains in effect unless and until it is altered by consensus." The latter wording is a correct statement of Wikipedia policy about changing a guideline. JamesMLane t c 03:19, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Too biased. How about, "Until the dispute is resolved by consensus, the guideline remains in effect" or just "For the time being, the guideline remains in effect"? Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:05, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how the meaning is changed by simply inverting the text, or by the inclusion of the word "recommended." You can switch it around all you want, it means the same thing. With regard to whom is doing the "recommending," it is recommended by us, the participants of this dispute. (Upon the request of LB.) I also remember that I specifically included the word "recommended" because I tried to find an official policy which addresses disputed guidelines, but could find none. If you are aware of one I would greatly appreciate it. Best, Miguel Chavez (talk) 05:13, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} I request that the dispute tag be removed from the page (under Quotation Marks, Inside or outside). The discussion has gone nowhere and there has been no consensus to change the MoS. Additionally, the tag basically tells editors that the guidelines stays in place until we change it... which goes without saying. All the banner does is confound everyday editors. --Laser brain (talk) 19:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. The content is repeatedly disputed. I've seen no evidence that the tag confuses anyone--though if you have any or wish to explain, I'm here and listening. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I do agree, however, that our discussion about whether or not to keep the tag isn't going anywhere. Everyone currently here seems to have said all they have to say about whether the tag should stay or go. There doesn't seem to be any consensus for removing it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Should we file an RfC for this? Perhaps some fresh, unbiased eyes would help. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

An RfC for the dispute tag? Absolutely not. I can't tell if you're talking about the issue in general or the tag. You've failed to gain consensus on the issue. The dispute tag never should have been there, and now that you've failed to gain consensus for your changes, its doubly inappropriate. What purpose is the tag serving? If even one person refrains from making an MoS-prescribed change because of that tag, it's causing damage. What good is it doing? Preventing people from making changes that the MoS might later disagree with if you get your way? I don't think that's kosher, do you really? I'd much rather you raise awareness with an RFC that with that banner. --Laser brain (talk) 20:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Seconded. We don't slap tags on everything that's not universally supported. Ilkali (talk) 21:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I am talking about the tag indicating that the wording of that particular section is disputed. For the record, it was there before I got here. The good that it's doing is letting people know that the material is disputed and that editing that section will be a touchy matter. Am fine with removing edit protection. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:32, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

By "people" you mean you and Mchavez, the ones who are interested in editing it? Why do you need a banner to let yourself know that your own edits will be "a touchy matter"? I'm going to the pub to have a pint now. --Laser brain (talk) 22:04, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

PMAnderson added the tag. There have certainly been more than 2-3 people on each side of the debate. The text of the tag is accurate: there is still much ongoing discussion on this talk page regarding this topic and, in the absent of consensus to do anything else, the guideline should be followed. Seems reasonable to keep it up there.--Karnesky (talk) 22:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

It gives people who might otherwise say nothing because they feel their "voice" won't carry much weight, especially on a long-standing policy or guideline.陣内_Jinnai 20:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Imperative vs. indicative

I think the inside or outside section of the MoS would be clearer if it were phrased in the imperative, as in "Put periods and commas inside or outside the quote marks..." rather than "Periods and commas are put." It is less likely to imply that the guideline is describing the English language rather than instructions from Wikipedia. Something similar is done with the line about subject headers: "Capitalize the first letter of the subject header but not..." rather than "Only the first letter is capitalized." This way, it doesn't imply that title-style is incorrect, only that it's not for Wikipedia. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

If you prefer; it doesn't carry that implication to me (if we want to make clear that this is specifically a WP style statement - and I think we should - then we should do that explicitly). And about the tag, I don't doubt that you think this a major and vital issue, but there are statements all over WP project and guideline space that people strongly disagree with. Probably most statements in fact - if no-one disagrees with something, quite likely no-one's ever thought to write it down. OK, one tag doesn't make much difference, but if we started putting them all over the place because people feel their dissenting views are somehow "legitimized" by them (and I don't see how they are), then they would become a plague. --Kotniski (talk) 16:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Kotniski. Tony (talk) 08:24, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Kotniski is wrong. If there is an active dispute, a tag is proper. Yes, there are many statements "...'all over' WP project and guideline space that people strongly disagree with." But are they 'actively' disputing those statements with which they disagree? If they are actively disputing, then a tag is appropriate. If there is no 'active' dispute, then a tag is not appropriate. Here on this page, thousands of words have been written on this subject because it is an active dispute. A tag is proper and appropriate. If they are actively disputing, then a tag is appropriate. Joe Hepperle (talk) 21:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Ambiguous phrasing in British English explanation

I love the new addition to quotation section. However, is this correct? In British English periods and commas are placed outside the quotation marks, unless the periods and commas were part of the original source material and the quotation is separated from the authors' text by some form of punctuation.

Does the "and the quotation is separated from the author's text by some form of punctuation mean" "Periods and commas are placed outside the quotation marks unless the quotation is separated" or "Periods and commas are placed outside the quotation marks unless... Also, the quotation is separated"?Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:40, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

It is correct. See the top of this discussion for examples. What the paragraph is saying is, if you quote someone's words you have to put some form of punctuation, like a comma or a colon, (dividing it and your words) in order to place the period inside the quotation. If your words aren't separated by punctuation, then the end point goes outside. For example:

• The British man said 'The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog'.

vs

• The British man said, 'The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog.'
• The British man said: 'The quick brown fox', shrewdly, 'jumps over the lazy dog.'

This is also an advantage of the American system, as it does away with such nuances. Best, Miguel Chavez (talk) 02:33, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

It makes it look as though the British system uses double punctuation, as in, The British man said "The fox jumps.", and then I gave him a pretzel. Is this the case? Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:07, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

It didn't occur to me that anyone would read it that way. I can fix that. Miguel Chavez (talk) 04:24, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• Just where is the consensus for this MAJOR change? I think it should be reverted until the consensus can be established. Tony (talk) 04:33, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Umm. Just what are you going on about? Clarification please. Miguel Chavez (talk) 05:13, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

MChavez, I'm afraid your modifications don't remove the ambiguity. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:06, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Quotation-mark dispute should end soon

• Leave original wording. I think the original rule was good enough. I even wrote the Wikipedia article "Logical quotation" (years ago) and cited valid sources/footnotes, but some people hacked and later deleted that article (whatever). I'm a computer scientist, ready to change the world, so instead, I say tell Americans to change their punctuation style to become logical. Most articles are written free-hand, not copied from American texts, so punctuation is chosen manually. Anyway, when quoting old prose, the text is to be copied verbatim, even with archaic spelling (such as "Olde tyme"). However, in math and many computer languages, the quotemarks are nested (which is truly logical and simpler). Meanwhile, knowing that people would fight this issue, I have edited thousands of articles with the following tricks:
          - use "and"/"or" for commas: Specify "a" or "b" or "c" without commas.
          - use parentheses to capture an ending quotemark: Say "I agree" (not "You're right").
  The use of parentheses can often prevent the need to force a dot/period inside the quotation marks (because the nesting is specified by "( )" before the end of the phrase).
  Anyway, logically, I say it's been good enough during the past 4 years, so leave it basically as is. It has not been an ominous danger to American grammatical culture. However, I applaud the recognition of the dispute-tag, but I feel, at this time, the dispute is over. -Wikid77 (talk) 09:25, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

By your reasoning, American punctuation has been good enough for the past 150 years.

Yes, there are lots of computer programmers on this board who prefer Wikipedia's current style to standard American punctuation. I guess people favor what they're used to.

That being said, we have certainly not reached consensus for adding lines explaining that Wikipedia's style differs from standard British and American punctuation. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Question: This discussion is actually impossible to read for a newcomer. Can someone tell whether some consensus resulted? Cheers.--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 11:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The consensus, violently opposed by three editors, has been from the beginning that our rules for handling punctuation in quotations are fine as they are and have been for a long time. The English-speaking world used to treat commas and full stops at the end of quotations counter-intuitively as special cases. The technical reasons for this special rule no longer apply, and the special rule is in the process of being abolished. Here we are seeing rearguard action by extreme supporters of typographic conservatism. They are spreading confusion by claiming that the term logical quotation is offensive, that logical quotation is not exactly the same as the standard style used in the UK, etc.

This explanation will no doubt cause violent protest from up to three editors. Two who prefer the eccentric system that is still the standard in the US, and one who always insists that MOS should never prefer a correct option over another correct option. Hans Adler 12:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Lykantrop, the issue over which the page was protected was whether or not the MoS should include a line explaining that Wikipedia's current punctuation system differs significantly from both standard American and standard British English. No consensus was reached. Much discussion of the punctuation system itself took place.

And good heavens, Hans! Just because people don't agree with you doesn't mean they're reactionaries or trying to make trouble. The American punctuation system is not "eccentric" or "in the process of being abolished." While the rule might have gotten there for typographical reasons, it is still there because it's easier to teach, easier to use, more consistent and, despite what many Wikipedians seem to believe, it does not cause confusion or factual errors when used to quote text sources and has over a hundred-year track record to prove it.

Wikipedia's system differs from British English in 1. its treatments of colons and semicolons and 2. its treatment of in-quotation periods that end complete sentences. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The same old nonsense. All systems for English in practice treat colons, semicolons, question marks and exclamation marks in exactly the same way, which is also that used by other languages. The only practical difference between American and English/logical is that the former has a counter-intuitive special rule for commas and full stops. But of course, every additional rule that you can make people memorise makes it easier, right? Hans Adler 18:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Adler, we had a whole big discussion about this. British and American English both place colons and semicolons outside and the current Wikipedia system can place them outside or inside depending on whether or not they're part of what's being quoted. Furthermore, the American system is not counterintuitive to people who've been raised to it any more than spelling "memorise" with an S instead of a Z is counterintuitive to people raised on the British system. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:38, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Frog, thanks for agreeing with what I said initially. (Except for the bit about colons and semicolons, where any differences occur so rarely that it's really not worth discussing. And the claim at Punctuation that this difference even exists is still unsourced since I couldn't find a source when I tried to verify it.) Hans Adler 18:46, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what we agreed on, but you're welcome. And I did find a source about British treatment of colons and semicolons but it did take some doing to find and didn't turn up when I looked again. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say, rather than that "no consensus was reached about whether or not to place the note", that there was no consensus for you to place the note? If you make a change that causes a dispute, and the dispute results in no consensus, the page should default back to the way it was before you made the change. --Laser brain (talk) 16:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I see that as pretty much what I said, LB. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Well showing no consensus is an attempt to show their is consensus. Overall I really don't care which system is used (though calling it logical rather than modified Briitsh system seems to have been done so to bias in favor of the style after reading the long debate). The only really jarring thing for me is the double punctuation. FE: "Jack asked me to tell you "to pick up some bread?". From the phrase "Could you ask Jack to pick up some bread?"陣内_Jinnai 21:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Look it up with Google and Google Books. All sources talking about the British and logical systems, except for one that Darkfrog24 can't find any more, use the terms as synonyms. The double punctuation simply does not exist in any of the systems. It only ever appears in extremely technical contexts such as citing computer input, and it does not seem to have a name. In the discussion above one editor got this point wrong, made up an example with double full stop as "logical quotation", and was corrected imimediately. Hans Adler 21:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The issue at hand, Jinnai, is whether the Wikipedia MoS should explain that its system differs from standard British and American English. The matter of whether or not it should use this system in the first place is another. I don't mean to be terse, but we're more likely to make progress if we can keep the two matters separate. Hans, when the question was raised, last month, of why we were using a British system on American articles, the answer came back, "It's not British at all." How do PiZero and Finell weigh in on this? Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

There were two issues, whether to change the MOS's position on quotation style, and, if logical style remains the position, whether to add an explicit statement that that style differs from both the British and American styles. I don't think either of these is an "issue" anymore. Not that there is no disagreement, that would be absurd — no matter what the MOS says or doesn't say, there will always be some people who disagree — but it seems pretty clear to me that there is no realistic prospect that there will be enough support at this time (i.e., mid-2009) for either of these changes to the MOS. The MOS will continue to recommend logical style, and will not discuss how logical style differs from other styles. Responsibility for explaining how logical style differs from other styles is delegated (rightly, IMO) to a mainspace article, explicitly by means of a link to Quotation mark#Punctuation. There was a problem with that mainspace article section, at the time that the extended discussion of quotation styles began here, in that the article section did not then explain clearly that logical quotation differs from the British style — but it explains this more clearly now than it did then, so to the extent that the unclarity there was motivating the proposal to add explanation in the MOS, that motivation does not currently exist (though a key passage about logical quotation in that article has a "citation needed" tag on it...). --Pi zero (talk) 02:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Periods and full stops

This is very minor (read: pedantic), and not even close to being worthy of an {{editprotected}} tag, but at some point, the words "period" and "full stop" should probably be harmonized on this page to one or the other, except where it requires explanation that they mean the same thing. Of course, we'd need to decide which wording to use.

Also, as a related point to this, the use of "period" is the norm in Canada as well, so the explanation in Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Punctuation_at_the_end_of_a_sentence should probably read "non-North American English".

If others agree, I'd be happy to do it whenever this page is once again unprotected, unless someone else feels some urgent need to do so. --Rob (talk) 21:07, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Rob, you are surrounded by grammar/punct enthusiasts. Chances are, we will not see you as too pedantic.

[Rude interjection in Darkfrog24's message: Too pedantic is an oxymoron. Finell (Talk) 05:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)]

Might be a bit of a digression, Finell, but I don't think you're being that rude. Actually, since "pedantic" means "overly ostentatious about one's learning," then "too pedantic" is not an oxymoron. Could be overkill, but that's not the same thing. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

It's too redundant, is the problem. ;) /ninly (talk) 02:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't feel that it's necessary to harmonize the terms. Parenthetical explanations are frequent enough to avoid confusion. This way, the article appears less regional.

Concur with change to "non-North-American English," but it needs another hyphen. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:19, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Good point about the non-regional presentation, Darkfrog24, I hadn't thought of it from that perspective. Thanks for the hyphenation tip...I've seen both ways before, but wasn't sure about official grammar rules (which, of course, vary by country and source and so forth anyway, as evidenced by the logical quotes debate). It always confuses me because, of course, if you just said "North American", ^{(guess that's a vote for logical quoting <g>)} you wouldn't hyphenate it. But I can see the logic in hyphenating it when it's negative, since you want to make it obvious which part(s) of the term is being negated. After all, on its own, "non-North American" could well imply "Central/South American". :) So yeah, I'm with you on the hyphenation here now that you bring my attention to it. --Rob (talk) 21:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

This isn't a geometry logical formulation. What it reminds me of is someone having the right of way and driving though a green light and being dead right because of a truck running the red light. I have never seen anyone write non-North-American, and would have no way of discerning the intended meaning. However, I do see that Google has seen it,[5][6] but I have no idea the intended meaning (both appear to be geekspeak, one from the ACM, the other from the IEEE). 199.125.109.99 (talk) 14:03, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

¶ The discussion at Wikipedia talk:MOSNUM over what articles should begin with metric or Imperial or U.S. Customary units assumes that most Wikipedia readers are outside North America (and consequently more familiar with metric units). Although I'm British and have lived in the U.S. for half a century, I think "period" may be as ambiguous and strange outside North America as "full stop" is within. And I think that "period" (like "stop") can have other meanings in punctuation, prose style, typography and layout. Since it would also read more smoothly (with fewer negatives and hyphens), my leaning is towards rearranging that sentence into something like this:

“

Full stops (usually called periods in North America), question marks, and exclamation marks are the three sentence-enders: the only punctuation marks used to end sentences.

”

—— Shakescene (talk) 21:40, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

That probably works better. :) --Rob (talk) 21:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Or even just

“

Full stops (periods), question marks, and exclamation marks are the three sentence-enders: the only punctuation marks used to end sentences.

”

Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:10, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Or even just

“

Full stops (periods), question marks, and exclamation marks are the only punctuation marks used to end sentences.

”

It was overformatted and contained background redundancies. Tony (talk) 03:49, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Or (sacrificing a little consistency for clarity and trans-Atlantic balance):

“

Full stops (periods or "."), question marks (interrogation points or "?"), and exclamation marks ("!") are the only punctuation marks used to end sentences.

”

(Someone better-trained than I/me can insert large green type where desirable.) —— Shakescene (talk) 06:20, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

• Shakescene, this last example is hyper-cluttered. If someone doesn't know what a period / full-stop is, let them click on the link: that is its purpose. "Interrogation point"? O come now. Highly technical terms and symbols are not necessary here: they are undesirable if you want the MoS to be slim and trim and easily comprehensible. Tony (talk) 08:51, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

• • I was mainly throwing that version out for discussion, Tony, rather than as a preferred alternative to your own. "Interrogation point" isn't technical, just (so far as I can recall from my own English childhood) a common name for the symbol in Commonwealth countries. But while it might still perhaps strike some as an Americanism, "question mark" is clear enough intuitively that it really doesn't need an explanation, whereas neither "full stop" and "period" is instantly understandable outside its area of prevalence. It still wouldn't hurt to show .,? and ! as symbols, too, as do most style manuals. Very few of those who aren't registered users with enabled pop-ups actually interrupt their reading twice by jumping to a wikilink to learn a meaning, just as we don't carry a dictionary to a cocktail party, play or lecture.—— Shakescene (talk) 19:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

When I think of the word period, I think of a typographic symbol having the form of a dot and positioned on at the baseline of a line of text, as distinct from an interpunct, which is vertically centered.

When I think of the expression full stop, I think of a period in one of its several functions, namely, that of indicating the end of a statement. In languages written and read from left to right, this means the extreme right end of the statement. A period is used as a decimal separator in some countries, and as a digit group separator in other countries. Paragraph 2 of Interpunct#In mathematics and science says: "In situations where the interpunct is used as a decimal point (as noted above, by many mathematics teachers in some countries), then the multiplication sign used is usually a period, not an interpunct." The German language uses the period to abbreviate ordinal numbers, as in de:1. Buch Mose (the first book of Moses), referred to in English as Genesis; 1. Januar (the first day of January); and de:1. Kongress der Vereinigten Staaten, referred to in English as 1st United States Congress. Periods are used in web addresses and in computer file names in general. Some people use them in telephone numbers. They are used in lists (for example, "4." and "a."). They sometimes indicate sections and subsections (for example, "sub-sub-subsection 2.3.4.5"). They are used in abbreviations. Different dictionaries and other reference works have various styles for using them in listed entries and elsewhere. An ellipsis can be formed as a row of periods, or by the use of a Unicode ellipsis symbol. Periods can be used as leader dots:

Chapter 1 ............................................3

Chapter 2...........................................11

Chapter 3...........................................22

Chapter 4...........................................35

Does anyone call a period a full stop in all of those functions?

Just as a period can perform several functions, so too can the function of a full stop be performed by various typographical forms in different languages. (See Punctuation#Other languages.)

I recommend that Wikipedia show the distinction between the word period (denoting form) and the phrase full stop (denoting function). -- Wavelength (talk) 16:58, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

[I revised my message. -- Wavelength (talk) 20:10, 14 June 2009 (UTC)]

Iff that is a true reflexion of the meanings of these terms in English. As for my dialect of English, the term period has nothing to do with punctuation ... I'd use the term dot (but this doesn't specify position). JIMp _talk·cont 17:08, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Taking Wavelength's point into account, the text should then read

“

Periods (full stops), question marks, and exclamation marks are the only punctuation marks used to end sentences.

”

to both show that the period is here discussed in its full stop function and to ensure that non-North-Americans will understand what is meant. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:19, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't get Wavelength's point at all. What's apparent to him seems quite different from what non-Americans would understand in everyday life. Today is the first time, for example, (not being a palaeographer or a coder) that I've ever heard of interpuncts, and while I wouldn't use the words "full stop" in any of Wavelength's examples, I wouldn't, living in the U.S., use the word "period" either. (Most people say "dot dot dot" to mean "..." and "dot-com" to mean ".com"; Wikipedia can tell them that grammarians call "..." ellipses, but should speak to them in the language they use already.) Since I think "full stop" may be familiar to more of our readers than "period", and since "full stop" is less ambiguous, I'm still inclined to flip the order, for example, something (considering that every rule has an exception) like:

“

Full stops (periods), question marks, and exclamation marks [ . ? ! ] are normally the only punctuation marks used to end sentences.

”

(outdent) I see what you mean about "grammar/punct enthusiasts", Darkfrog24. <g> At this point, I'm going to Unwatch this page, cuz it's cluttering my Watchlist. I'll trust one of you to make whatever changes you eventually decide on. :) --Rob (talk) 20:52, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

"I wouldn't, living in the U.S., use the word "period" either. … I think "full stop" may be familiar to more of our readers than "period""

I find that very strange. I grew up in the US, and my perception is that "period" is the normal term, and "full stop" is unheard of. I certainly didn't encounter it growing up. It's "period" on Seseme Street and other PBS shows, and "blah blah blah, period!" is an idiom. Długosz (talk) 19:42, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

It's the same in my part of the U.S. We say "period," not "full stop." Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I am fine with either "Full stops (periods)" or "Periods (full stops)," but since 1. addressing Wavelength's issue takes so little space and doesn't make the page any more confusing and 2. the two phrasings are roughly equal in other respects, I'd lean more toward "Periods (full stops)." Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:13, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I concur with Darkfrog24's position that "periods (full stops)" is more sensible. In American English, the most common context in which one sees the phrase "full stop" (and for most Americans, the only context in which they have ever heard the phrase) is in the context of driving, as when a driving instructor reminds students to make a "full stop" at a stop sign and look both ways before proceeding through the intersection. A "full stop" or "complete stop" in American English is contrasted against the "California stop" or "rolling stop" where one slows to less than 10 mph but fails to actually obey the stop sign. See, for example, this article from the San Bernardino Sun about a new red light enforcement camera. --Coolcaesar (talk) 07:09, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't mind it. I'm keen to keep the main text plain, short and simple. There is talk of making fine and subtle conceptual distinctions; users here may consider writing these prominently into the linked articles on these items. Tony (talk) 08:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Dash spacing in categories

If I remember correctly, categories shouldn't have fancy dashes because redirects won't work properly. But what about spacing? Should Category:St. Louis-San Francisco Railway be moved to Category:St. Louis - San Francisco Railway? --NE2 03:01, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe this issue has come up in discussion elsewhere about the use of dashes in categories, in which there strong arguments put both ways. I'm going to ask User:The Duke of Waltham, who alerted me to this matter when it arose (last year, can't remember where). My personal belief is that categories should be treated exactly the same way as the rest of WP's text: a spaced en dash is required (Category:St. Louis – San Francisco Railway). Spacing the squidgy hyphen is a step in the right direction, but is consistency here a technical/search problem? I'd not have thought so. Tony (talk) 08:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that if there's a fancy dash in the category name, you can't just type the category using your keyboard. --NE2 11:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

NE2, I'd have thought there was nothing fancy at all about a plain old dash. If you don't have a full Windows keyboard (bottom-left and top-right buttons) or a Mac (option-hyphen), just hit the very first symbol below the edit box to the right of the "Insert" tab. Please let me know if you have further queries. Tony (talk) 13:56, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

That assumes, does it not, that  (1) only someone who's editing a page would want to type the name of the category, and  (2) only someone who has Javascript enabled would want to type the name of the category. I disagree with both of those assumptions. Pi zero (talk) 02:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

You've lost me, totally; can you explain in dummies' language? Is this about search capability? If so, I believe the en dash and hyphen are inclusive in searches. Tony (talk) 04:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Say I'm writing an article on something related to the St. Louis – San Francisco Railway. I add the category, but even though I've typed it as it appears, it's showing up red. The existence of different dashes is not something you nromally learn in school. --NE2 06:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

(3) that the editor realizes that there are different dashes, and which one is correct. --NE2 06:42, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] ENGVAR scope: Germany, UK English, and the EU

As per ENGVAR, shouldn't Germany be affected by it due to its EU membership? As per ENGVAR articles about the EU should use British/Irish English. Since Germany is an EU member and since the EU has profound effects on various political and cultural aspects of its member states, generally, shouldn't articles relating to all EU member states use British English? WhisperToMe (talk) 17:42, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

No. Consider the analogous situation: The articles on J.R.R. Tolkien and his works are written in British English. Since Tolkien's books have had a profound influence on the fantasy genre, all articles on fantasy books should be written in British English. Strad (talk) 18:10, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

This is in context with national ties, something inherent to countries. By definition a fantasy book has no national ties whatsoever. Likewise Germany has deep ties to the UK, Ireland, and Malta through its EU membership. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:33, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

What about Ramstein Air Base? Most articles about the EU as such use British or Irish English, but there's no reason to apply that to every article about anything connected to an EU country. Physchim62 (talk) 18:26, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Ramstein Air Base would be an exception to the rule, as there is the fact that it's an American air force base. I'm referring to articles like Berlin, which use American English simply because that was how the article started out. I use the word generally for that reason. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:33, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

[the following has probably been somewhat outdated by an intervening edit conflict:] I don't see a "deep" connection between the British Isles and Germany (p.s., Cyprus is another EU country in the Commonwealth). I think that the U.S. zone of occupation in Germany and Berlin was greater than the British, and that the U.S. forces in Germany were greater than the British Army of the Rhine, so you could argue that American influences were almost as great as British ones. There's also been a larger German- and Yiddish-speaking community in the U.S., interacting with Germany, than in Britain or Ireland. (This isn't nationalism on my part since I was born in London, still retain British citizenship, root for British sports teams and favour British spellings, though I've long lived in the States.) I don't think that German articles in general classify as either U.S. or British-oriented, so the first-major-editor rule should apply, although naturally some specific articles might have a particular orientation to the U.S., Ireland or Britain (as vs. the EU), and attract British, Irish or American editors (e.g. the Berlin Airlift, Dresden, Hanover, Haydn or Joseph Weydemeyer). By the way, I think many of these arguments might apply to Austria, while rather different ones might apply to Switzerland. —— Shakescene (talk) 19:20, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe the appropriate answer is to find out what kind of English the Germans most typically use when writing in English. I see no a priori reason to guess based on membership in international organizations. Some contrary evidence: on www.spiegel.de there are about 1000 uses of "color" and only about 100 uses of "colour", so I suspect an editorial decision to use American spelling. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:42, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I understand the European Union itself uses British English - Should I check to see what variant of English is preferred by German government websites and press releases? WhisperToMe (talk) 18:58, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

At Berlin.de (City of Berlin website) - English pages only: Colour appears 289 times - Color appears 163 times EDIT: Added some parameters that excluded German pages WhisperToMe (talk) 19:05, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

This would be useful to know, but I think that the general rules should probably apply: whatever the first editor finds most natural to use. There's little point to adding yet another Wikipedia rule or to expect editors of articles with ties to each of a couple of hundred possible nations to look up whether the Czechs, the Chinese or the Argentines prefer English or American spelling. Editing an article about Marie Curie, Shinto or gauchos would require enough care and effort already. On the other hand, if one is truly indifferent about British or American spelling, and just wants to pick the most appropriate for a German-related article that German users might read in English, this would obviously be useful information to have. —— Shakescene (talk) 19:20, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your comments, Shakescene, but just want to point out that we don't tailor German-related articles to German users, but rather to all readers of the English-language encyclopedia. We can't assume that most readers of an article like Berlin are in Germany (in fact, they probably aren't). --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:31, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

It strikes me that this issue isn't easily solved by reference to the variant preferred by the EU, the German gov't, the City of Berlin, German media, the Berlin tourist board, etc. etc., because none of those sources purport to establish an official or preferred English variant for Germany or anywhere else in Europe (and their own usage may vary and/or be inconsistent). This is an issue for all articles pertaining to any non-English-speaking nation in the world. Articles such as Berlin, just like Table (furniture), Warsaw and Screwdriver, have no strong ties to any variety of English -- arguments about British-membership in the EU, or what variant Germans are more likely to use, are inherently subjective and not much help here (you can just imagine the endless debates over the "national ties" of the many place name articles, and whether the links to Britain or America are stronger). As such (pardon me for stating the obvious), retain the existing variant and look for opportunities for commonality. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:28, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Concur. Right now, Germany itself does not seem to have a preference for U.K. or U.S. English overall. Its membership in the E.U. alone should not mean that Wikipedia articles on German subjects must be written in British English. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:04, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

When I learned English at school it started with British English. Then, after 5 or 6 years, it switched to American English. This was not due to some change of policy but intentional, so that we learn both variants. Of course this kind of thing probably varies over time and between German states. But it's safe to say that neither variant dominates in Germany. Scientists use AE or BE depending on factors such as time spent in English-speaking countries or whether they have more contacts in the US or in Commonwealth countries. BE is used for things connected to EU bureaucracy, AE is used in computing. Places like Heidelberg or Schloss Neuschwanstein have a lot more American than British tourists, so information for tourists tends to be in AE. Hans Adler 00:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Germany is not an ancestral native anglophone country (there are seven obvious ones). The normal rules apply to Germany. Tony (talk) 03:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Only seven? Category:English-speaking countries and territories has rather more than that. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:16, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

There are 53 states in the Commonwealth ... — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 04:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I understand the original motivation of this thread as an attempt to revise ENGVAR so that WP:MOS#Strong national ties to a topic applies more widely. Arguing that all of Europe should get the same status as the UK and all of South America the same status as the US does make some sense and would lead to greater inter-article consistency. I think it's appropriate to discuss the merits of this proposal (or point to an earlier discussion if this is a perennial proposal). Hans Adler 08:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Not sure that would work. What about the British overseas territories in South and Central America? IMO it should just be left as is, though perhaps any article directly on the EU itself should use British English.陣内_Jinnai 19:26, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, for British territories they would use British English, but I tend to use US English for topics about Spanish and Portuguese-speaking countries in Latin America. BTW the consensus seems to be clear that no national variety is preferred for Germany, so... WhisperToMe (talk) 02:29, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree, and in fact I argued for keeping ENGVAR as it is (in the case of Germany). Hans Adler 19:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Some justifications for the ENGVAR custom are

• When a topic has a strong tie to a particular English speaking nation, readers from that nation are likely to make up a disproportionate share of the readers, so those readers should be catered to.
• The past, present, and future editors of an article with strong ties to a particular English speaking nation are likely to be from that nation, and it will be easier for them to write in their native variety.

These justifications just don't apply to nations where English is not the primary language, no matter how close they may be geographically to an English-speaking nation. --Jc3s5h (talk) 20:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree overall, Jc3s5h. However, I personally would make the exception that if a non-English speaking area or subject shows a marked preference for one form of English over the others, then I would support writing articles about that area or subject in that variety of English. That doesn't seem to be true in the case of Germany, however. If we were talking about India...

I would also add that writing of British subjects in British English (etc.) adds an air of authenticity to the article and seems more respectful of the subject. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:11, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

India is different; it's not really a "non-English-speaking country". English has a recognized Indian dialect that has actual native speakers (a lot of them, in fact). This is the real difference, I think; there is "Indian English", but there is not any serious "German English" or "French English", notstanding the fact that huge numbers of Germans and French speak English. --Trovatore (talk) 21:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Editors and readers from the ancestral native-speaking countries—seven of them, or so—are the ones mostly likely to get uppity about the variety (the US and Canada, the UK and Ireland, Australia and NZ, and South Africa). While English is big in places such as India, people are less emotionally attached to a particular variety. Tony (talk) 05:19, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] background-image?

Is there any way to add an uploaded image to the background?
I've read things about altering the CSS to make changes globally (I don't exactly know what the CSS is, if I'm allowed to change it, or what that would even do if i did) ... I merely want to alter a background on a page-only basis so that myself and other users can see it.

I know how to use the style "background:#XXX" to alter the color.

Is the style "background-image" disabled? Does it even exist? Robert M Johnson (talk) 21:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

You mean having a washed-out image behind the text? I find that distracting, frankly. I don't know if it would be best in an encyclopedia, though it can be artistic in other contexts. 24.187.189.117 (talk) 03:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I have no objection if editors want to use such a feature on their user pages, but don't think it's a good idea at all for articles and other namespaces (Help:, Talk:, Wikipedia:, etc.). I agree with 24.187.189.117 that it would be distracting, and can't think of a good reason why we would want to have background images on such pages. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 13:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

None of you have used a background image anywhere (on your computer, website, etc.)? Robert M Johnson (talk) 14:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I have an image on my desktop, but then my desktop isn't covered with text I'm trying to read. On what pages would you like to use a background image, and why? — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 15:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Just my user page, thus far. I'm a relatively new user, and I'm in the middle of creating my user page. I was going to have an extremely faded image of the Pyramid of the moon from Teotihuacan behind my userboxes, and several (opaque/translucent) tables. Certain images, yes, obviously inhibit a reader from clearly being able to read text. When dealing with opacities/transparencies, etc. a background image creates depth and art, not difficulty in coveying a message. For a user page or a talk page, I see no harm in adding a background. (The wikipedia, itself for example, has a background image. If you are logged in right now, the words my talk, my preferences, my watchlist, my contributions etc. are all text on a background.)Robert M Johnson (talk) 16:22, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

As I said, I have no objection at all to background images on user pages, but at this point remain unconvinced that they enhance other types of pages (including talk pages). I would want to hear a good reason why an image that is regarded as relevant to a page is not simply displayed in the usual way. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 17:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I have no reasoning behind using a background image on a wiki article (or non-user page). If you want to be convinced on background usage in its entirety, do not look to me. I'm merely inquiring on the matter in order to perhaps utilize a background on my user page. Since a clear answer to my question has not been posted... Would it be correct to assume this feature does indeed exist, but lies disabled due to the obvious number of persons objecting to it? Robert M Johnson (talk) 18:22, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

It is more likely that the option does not exist at all instead of it being disabled. Garion96 (talk) 18:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Robert, if your query is only about user pages, then this is probably not the right talk page to discuss your question. You might want to post a message at "Wikipedia talk:User page". — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 07:58, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Example error

It seems to me that one of the examples in the Use of "The" mid-sentence is incorrect. In the New York Times example, it says "There was an article about the United Kingdom in the New York Times." is correct, but The New York Times should be italicized since it is the title of a newspaper. Also, I've been seeing the formatting of publications with similar names done a few different ways lately. Could someone tell me in the above example, how "The New York Times" would be italicized, whether "The" would be capitalized and where the wikilink brackets would go around it? Thanks. - kollision (talk) 10:41, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Probably a bad example, since "The" appears to be part of the name of the newspaper. New York Post might be a better example. Powers ^T 13:38, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

My view is that if the The forms part of the name of the newspaper, it ought to be capitalized and italicized, i.e., "There was an article about the United Kingdom in The New York Times". Furthermore, since the The is part of the name, it should be included within the wikilinking brackets (and if the article that is wikilinked to lacks the The, it should be moved). — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 13:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe that the house style of the Times itself prescribes that the The is included and capitalized in the title, but according to other prevalent styles (with which I agree on this point), including Chicago, this should be ignored in general (so, the New York Times). However, we should probably just use the New York Post or some other paper in the interest of having a definitive example. /ninly (talk) 15:49, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

See here for an example of usage in "The New York Times manual of style and usage" itself. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:02, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Another questionable example

"Homer wrote the Odyssey." I think the title is "The Odyssey", at least according to the two book covers we use (File:Fagles-odyssey.jpg and File:Odyssey-fitz.jpg). Also there's no "Incorrect" way for this line unlike the others. 75.4.146.213 (talk) 11:54, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

The Odyssey has a long history of being used as a title independent of its definite article. Book covers capitalize the "The" because it's the first word on a line (and because these two are in all caps). Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:45, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I believe "Homer's Odyssey" is a common construction. Powers ^T 14:02, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the OP referred to the fact that the covers read "THE ODISSEY" rather than just "ODISSEY", not to capitalization. But I think it is more a matter of the title so classical that it's being used as a noun (as in "the Bible" or "the Kama Sutra"—compare with modern titles such as Pulp which aren't preceded by an article), than the article being part of the title as in The Godfather. --A. di M. (formerly Army1987) — Deeds, not words. 14:51, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I meant. After searching around a bit: "Homer's Odyssey" and "The Odyssey" are by far the most common forms used as a title by itself (like on a book cover), however, when it's referred to in a body of text, it's usually "the Odyssey". 75.4.146.213 (talk) 01:47, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Quoting from the preface to the first edition: "The 'Odyssey' (as every one knows) abounds in passages borrowed from the 'Iliad'; ...". (see here).

Quoting from the preface to the second edition: "Butler's Translation of the 'Odyssey' appeared originally ...". (see here). Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:02, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• I think there's no doubt that "the/The" is grammatically part of a name, and that where the owner insists or it is otherwise customary, upper-case T is probably best. It's bound to continue to be an area of tension in the langauge. I believe The Beatles insisted on the T, although some people object and use t: I don't care much, but it needs to be consistent throughout an article's internal text. Tony (talk) 03:42, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

While a capital T is part of some names, it is not the owner's preference that determines this. [WP: Trademark] states, "choose the style that most closely resembles standard English, regardless of the preference of the trademark owner." In other words, "The New York Times" but "the Beatles," etc. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

That would seem to contradict both this policy and current practice, vis a vis The New York Times but the New York Post. Powers ^T 14:24, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) WP:MOSTM sounds somewhat unreasonable to me, and (fortunately?) it is not followed consistently. I guess nobody would ever dream of moving CERN to Cern, despite the fact that it's not pronounced cee-e-ar-en and that it's not an acronym (though it used to be one). So, why must it be Kiss (band) and not KISS (band)? I don't get it. Also, over-zealous application of WP:MOSTM sometimes produces borderline original research: we have an article titled Year Zero Remixed about an album which most reliable sources (not just the trademark owner) refer to as Y34RZ3R0R3M1X3D, and almost nobody as Year Zero Remixed. So I think the wording the style that most closely resembles standard English encourages name mangling too much. If we want to avoid really bizzarre things such as "adidas" with a lowercase A, a better way to do that without throwing the baby away with the bathwater would be writing the style which is most commonly used in running text in English by reliable secondary sources, or something like that. --A. di M. (formerly Army1987) — Deeds, not words. 15:46, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Vertical whitespace

I have seen a number of articles lately like the current revision of General radiotelephone operator license which have an odd style involving lots of vertical whitespace. unless I missed it, there is no guideline on this point. If there is not, perhaps there should be. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:56, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

That whole section looks like it was lifted directly from a manual. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the main issue is that there is a lot of text in point form. If it were recast into paragraphs, the whitespace problem would disappear. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 05:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Use of the article before the name of a ship

A sizable number of Wikipedia articles omit the "the" before the name of a ship, and in many cases usage is inconsistent, RMS Titanic is an example. Entries about navy ships tend to forego the use of the article frequently (military jargon?). The Little, Brown Handbook (ninth edition, 2004, page 343, ISBN 0-321-10350-5) indicates that the article is used before ships ("the Lusitania"), Melville left us a description of "the Pequod", and "Sink Bismarck" just does not sound right. Shouldn't we use the article before ships in Wikipedia? Ekem (talk) 03:10, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't it depend on whether the article is part of the registered name of the ship or vessel? — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 10:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm confused myself, but at least I think it's rare to keep an article after Her Majesty's Ship (H.M.S.), His Majesty's Canadian Ship (HMCS), Royal Mail Ship (R.M.S.), United States Ship (U.S.S.), etc. Thus, Raise the Titanic! but H.M.S. Pinafore. The Player's cigarette box is famous for the incorrect inscription on the Royal Navy sailor's cap, which reads "Hero" and not "HMS Hero" or "The Hero". On the other hand, inscriptions on a ship's stern usually read "Hero/Bristol" and not "The Hero/Bristol". If you're not near a dock, look at just about any Tintin story. —— Shakescene (talk) 21:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

:-D I seem to recall a ship called the Kanchenjunga... — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 09:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Italicize a media franchise?

Hello everyone. There's a dispute concerning whether or not the word "Pokémon" should be italicized when referring to the franchise as a whole. "Pokémon video game series" and "the Pokémon anime" are correct, but something like "Pokémon book series" is incorrect. So, what about "the Pokémon franchise"? Thanks in advance. -sesuPRIME 04:34, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

This query was split off from this discussion. Please read that before commenting here. Artichoker^[talk] 15:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, we say things like, "The Anita Blake series," but italicize the titles of the books themselves, so perhaps "Pokemon" itself should not be italicized.

Question, though: Is Star Trek italicized when discussed in its entirety? I think it is. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

It appears so. See Star Trek. Opening words are italicized (normally they might just be bolded otherwise).陣内_Jinnai 19:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Hm. This looks like a case-by-caser, Sesu. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Why do you say that? -sesuPRIME 01:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it depends on whether the franchise is named after a media property (as the Star Trek franchise is named for the Star Trek television program, and the Pokemon franchise is named for the card game Pokemon) or after some other aspect of the universe (such as Forgotten Realms or the Wold Newton family or the Sherlock Holmes stories (Note that Forgotten Realms is often italicized but I'm not clear why)). Powers ^T 13:12, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

While it may not be the case that all media franchises are italicized, it does seem to happen more often than not, at least in formal writing. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

My take on this is that there is no need to italicize terms like "Pokémon" and "Star Trek" when used in relation to a media franchise because the terms are not being used as the titles of works (books, films, games, etc.) or any of the other instances where italics are generally used in Wikipedia: see WP:ITALICS. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 17:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

It could be argued that the terms are being used as the titles of works. For instance, "the Star Trek franchise" could be interpreted to mean "the franchise based on the original television program Star Trek". Powers ^T 18:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

True... Does the italics rule apply to games like "Pokémon"? It seems a little odd to italicize names like Monopoly, Scrabble and Uno. On the other hand, italics seem fine for games like Dungeons and Dragons and Grand Theft Auto. Are content-rich electronic and video games to be differentiated from board games? — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 18:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm wondering if its because those games are presented as a narrative work and Monopoly isn't.陣内_Jinnai 19:17, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to clarify that "Pokémon" didn't start out as a card game, but as a pair of video games. I think LtPowers got it right when he(?) said ""the Star Trek franchise" could be interpreted to mean "the franchise based on the original television program Star Trek"." Perhaps the original product on which the franchise is based should be the template for how it's written. For example, we'd use "the Pokémon franchise" because the original "Pokémon" product, the video games, is italicized. Thoughts? -sesuPRIME 21:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Replying to Powers ^T 13:12, 1 July 2009 (UTC) above: One could argue that the Pokémon franchise is named after the creatures, too. So that can be seen both as an argument for italics and as one against it. (Is the Rocky film series named after Rocky Balboa or is it named after the first film in the series?) --A. di M. (formerly Army1987) — Deeds, not words. 10:39, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

That's a straw man. Every franchise is based off of a title. Yes some franchise titles have elements like characters, creatures, world, etc. in them but the franchise is based off the title, not the element otherwise Star Trek franchise would be called the Enterprise franchise or something like that. The only exception to that is when a character becomes popular enough to have their own spinoff and even then they usually have a work with their name.陣内_Jinnai 01:50, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I checked around. The "Disney Princess" franchise is not based off a title and usually goes unitalicized. Here's a question: Does Nintendo italicize the name of the franchise on official documents (ones that might have been expected to receive professional copy editing)? Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:43, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Requested edit

{{editprotected}} Please add "Colons should never be followed by a hyphen or dash." to the section MOS:#Colons per the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Use_of_an_archaic_printers_mark. Thanks, » Swpb^{τ • ¢} 14:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the phrasing, "Do not place hyphens or dashes after colons" would be better. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Added. --Laser brain (talk) 16:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I'm pleased. I'd not thought of such a rule, but it's a definite improvement. Colon plus hyphen is a squashy little urchin that doesn't belong in the sophisticated formatting we now have available. Thanks, Lb. Tony (talk) 14:21, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] WP:BLAZON

We at WP:HV have created a guideline on a particular subject: WP:BLAZON. It's currently in "review" stage. Can anyone suggest a place here that might be suitable to mention it? (Or, if you have a familiarity with the subject, raise issues with it here). It does only cover italics, that sort of thing, so it's worth a mention somewhere, but I feel awkward editing straight such a well-held guideline as this. Any suggestions (or just do it, of course)? - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 16:52, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Looking over the list I would put it as a new subsection Heraldic vocabulary between National varieties of English and Grammar. It may be appropriate to have that subsection point to the WP:BLAZON rather than go into too much detail. -- Evertype·✆ 17:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Blazon is actually a formalised system of specifying coats of arms, including the specialised vocabulary, but also including word order, qualifiers and other points of language. In some areas, it's extremely loose and in others very particular. Rough analogies might be found in computer programming code, pharmacology, architectural specifications and formal logic. So it's a little more than "heraldic vocabulary"; on the other hand, you want a title that doesn't baffle the lay reader. —— Shakescene (talk) 05:23, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Evertype and I are aware of the policy (having written it!) - it's just a case of showing it's not really what you say, but how you should say it. Like all the MoS it's about caps, italics etc. Maybe just "Heraldry" or "Blazon" (I reckon most people looking it up will know enough about what it is)? - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 11:39, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I;ve stuck a "blazon" section in misc. It really should be moved, but my problem with Evertype's suggestion is that involves putting it in the Grammar section, which doesn't realyl cover it - this is more about "typesetting" sort of things. A coupl of small links need to be placed elsewhere, but the section needs to find a home first. - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 19:11, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

My suggestion was to put it as a section of its own between National Varieties and Grammar, not within Grammar. -- Evertype·✆ 20:20, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I must have misunderstood. It goes like this:

• Grammar

• ...
• National varieties of English

• Consistency within articles
• ...

• Foreign terms

I don't see where you mean. - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 20:33, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Large numbers of images

In Talk:Color wheel#Lots of images I raise the point that the article IMO has too many images of a similar purpose scattered across the page. Fair use is not an issue in this case since the copyrights on the images have expired, but the main contributors to the article believe this is a good thing and that they serve a decorative purpose. I was wondering what style policies there are in this regard? I'm not sure "decorative" is a sufficient criteria. WP:MOS#Images says, "Images should be inside the section they belong to (after the heading and after any links to other articles), and not above the heading." When the images are scattered across the page in this way then they are not contained in a relevant section. WP:LAY#Images also says, "You should always be watchful not to overwhelm an article with images by adding more just because you can." In this case a gallery or link to the commons category would suffice, IMO. I'd appreciate any feedback on the matter, thanks. SharkD (talk) 21:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:How to fix bunched-up edit links. -- Wavelength (talk) 14:05, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Someone started a similar discussion here. SharkD (talk) 11:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

It would be preferable to have the discussion in one place or the other, but not both. Wikipedia talk:Images#Number of images in an article is a better place than here because it is on the talk page for the specific guideline involved. Finell (Talk) 20:54, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

That page gets lot less traffic, though. SharkD (talk) 02:16, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] italicised dates

User:Stilltim has been italicising dates of birth in the lead of articles. I can't seem to find any restriction on doing so, but the format in every other article I've ever seen is to keep them non-italicised. Thoughts? Ironholds (talk) 10:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

My thought, for whatever it's worth, is that this is the kind of thing where I'm just going to differ naturally with most of the regulars here. Some written reference books italicise dates of birth and death, and others don't, so I just say (much to others' horror): to each his or her own preferred style. For example, the first page I open from what I have instantly to hand, Le Petit Larousse Illustré, 2004, italicises the dates for

NAPOLÉON III (Charles Louis Napoléon Bonaparte), Paris 1808 - Chislehurst, Kent, 1873, empéreur des Français ( 1852 - 1870 )....

while my Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Encyclopedia (created in cooperation with Encyclopaedia Britannica) has

Hopkins, Gerard Manley (1844-1889) British poet....

If we want to reduce (or at least not increase) Wikipedia's unmanageable and crushing amount of instruction sprawl, this would be (at least for someone who isn't keen on uniformity for its own sake) a grand place to begin. No one's going to be taken aback, let alone confused or misled, by the variation; in fact very few will notice. —— Shakescene (talk) 11:14, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

While I find Shakescene's remarks interesting, I think we do already have a guideline on this: WP:ITALICS. Dates of birth and death are not items that the guideline advises editors to italicize, so arguably they should not be italicized. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 12:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

My argument exactly. In terms of style we have a positive law, not a negative one - if something isn't specifically mentioned then, taking common sense into account, they probably should be excluded from the guideline. Ironholds (talk) 12:34, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Shakescene. WP: ITALICS says nothing either way about italicizing dates. This should not be interpreted to mean that they must or must not be italicized. I would only add that italicizing previously unitalicized dates would constitute a style change and would therefore be worth discussing on the articles' individual talk pages where there is reason to believe that other contributors will object—which seems to be the case with Stilltim and Ironholds. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:38, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

The italicisation of dates isn't used anywhere else on the wiki - I think that's sign enough that it isn't considered valid, whatever the MoS directly says. Ironholds (talk) 12:42, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Expressio unius est exclusio alterius – the express mention of one thing excludes all others. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 12:48, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Jacklee, but the WP: ITALICS page includes both lists of the sorts of things to italicize and the sorts of things to not italicize. Again, it doesn't show us either way. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:54, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Ummm, not as far as I can tell. WP:ITALICS indicates only items that are italicized in Wikipedia. There is a section called "When not to use emphasis", but that is about "the use of various style devices to show emphasis" and not just italics. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 18:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• If we're using statutory interpretation style things here the mischief rule also applies. The MoS was put in to create a "house style" for articles. The currently used house style is to non-italicise dates. As such, italicising dates defeats the purpose of the MoS. Ironholds (talk) 12:52, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

That's a common style, Ironholds, but if our stated guidelines are guidelines and not laws, then surely our unstated common practices have even more flexibility.

There seem to be two questions here 1. whether the Wikipedia MoS in general states or implies that dates should or should not be italicized and 2. whether Stilltim is doing anything wrong. In the case of this second, if Stilltim is going into articles and changing optional styles without raising the matter with the other editors, then yes, he could be said to be doing something wrong (though I could understand why he might not think anyone would mind). In that case, someone should go to his talk page and tell him, "Please raise the issue of italicizing dates on the talk page before implementing the change." If Stilltim is reasonable, then that should solve the problem. However, Stilltim seems to also create a number of articles himself. In those cases, he'd likely be the first major contributor. Then, the issue of changing the dates to non-italics would have to be raised on the talk page. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:03, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Hm, have we been looking in the wrong place? MOS:DOB doesn't specifically mention italics, but what do you guys think? Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:07, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't give anything specific, but I note that it advises us to use the birthdeath templates where possible. Those templates don't include italicised dates, and only use normal text. A clue? Ironholds (talk) 13:17, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I note that in Shakescene's example, the italicized dates are not within parentheses, and therefore are italicized to set them off from the rest of the text. Since our birth and death dates are parenthesized, we need not italicize them too. Powers ^T 14:02, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• It would be helpful to see it in context: no links? In principle, I'm against needless formatting, and find much text in English over-formatted. There is also the matter of consistency in the project; while no one wants to impose a straight jacket, I see no need to run around introducing this little innovation. A date's a date, and it's perfectly plain and clear in roman face like the rest of the text. Should be italicise the profession of the subject, too? Tony (talk) 14:17, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• Just like with autoformatting, why make things more complicated with unnecessary markup? I don't see the need for italics; the dates are right after the bolded name and can't be missed. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:41, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• Don't italicize dates. I am not aware of any general style guideline to italicize dates of birth and death. If a particular publication italicizes them, that is an idiosyncrasy of their house style (their internal manual of style) and is irrelevant to us (a foreign language example is even less relevant than one in the English language might be). Unless the relevant MOS guidelines—WP:ITALICS and, in this instance, MOS:DOB—prescribe italic for a particular usage, text should not be italicized. That is what a guideline means. If the argument above that anything may be italicized in addition to what the MOS guidelines prescribe were correct, then one might arbitrarily choose to italicize all proper nouns, or surnames, or months, or the first word of every paragraph. An important purpose of our MOS, and of any style manual, is to avoid such non-uniform chaos. As for those who worry about instruction creep (which is an essay, not a policy), Wikipedia's MOS is the least prescriptive style manual there is. No other publication allows such a wide variety of choices as to citation form, serial commas, use of dashes, English variety, date formatting, etc., etc., etc. Finell (Talk) 18:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Finell, I'm not arguing in favor of italicizing dates. I agree with most of you that it's not necessary. The question is whether or not it's forbidden and it doesn't seem to be. The above argument refers to whether WP: ITALICS gives us a policy on italicizing dates. It doesn't. Therefore, if we were going solely by WP: ITALICS, then we could say that Stilltim was not doing anything wrong other than making an optional change without consulting other editors, which is what Ironhold has asked us about.

On the other hand, the fact that none of the examples in MOS:DOB are in italics is telling. I would say that it implies that dates are not to be italicized on Wikipedia. However, if our stated styles are guidelines and not rules, than unstated styles must be still more flexible. Therefore, if the issue is what to do about Stilltim, then treating this as an optional change is probably the best way to go. The best thing to do would be to 1. ask Stilltim to raise the issue of such style changes on articles' talk pages in the future and 2. go to articles that he's already changed and say, "Hey, do we really need those italics?" I expect that a consensus of "No, I guess we don't" will occur in relatively short order. Problem solved.

If the next question is whether we should add a passage to MOS:DOB explicitly barring italics in the future, I feel that we should not. Italics on dates may not be necessary, but, unlike italics on random parts of speech, they do no harm. Adding another complication would do more harm than good. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:13, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Let me add that I agree with the opinions above that once dates have been added to an article, their style shouldn't be changed either to or from italic without discussion on the article's talk page. If this isn't significant enough in my opinion to merit a new rule, it's surely not worth starting an edit war over. The first editor's style, as in WP:ENGVAR should apply. (The one situation I can think of where uniformity might be desirable in itself is extremely-closely-related biographies, such as those for John, Paul, George and Ringo — as opposed, say, to John and Yoko, or Paul and Linda. Otherwise, just let it be.) —— Shakescene (talk) 03:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

This isn't how a style manual works. Generally, a style manual says what to do, not what not to do. WP: ITALICS prescribes when to use italics. It doesn't also have to say, "Don't use italics for dates. Don't use italics for ordinary English words. Don't use italics for nick-names. Don't use italics for numbers written out in words...." MOS:DOB gives examples of how to show dates of birth and death in the article's lead. The examples are not in italic. It is not necessary to add, "Don't use italic. Don't use boldface. Don't use underscore. Don't use red font color. Don't use blue font color. Don't use all caps for months. Don't use large and small caps for months. Don't say 'around' in place of circa." I know, WP: ITALICS does say not to use italics for quotations; so does WP:QUOTE. That is because setting quotations in italic is an especially prevalent mistake. But in general, where the MOS prescribes usage, it is not necessary to prohibit explicitly all alternative or additional usages; that is implicit. Where alternate usages are acceptable, the MOS says so explicitly: e.g., serial commas, BC/AD vs BCE/CE, where to place AD. I do not agree with the proposition that if an article's first author used red font for the entire article, everyone else has to leave it alone because the MOS doesn't prescribe color. Finell (Talk) 06:00, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Red font a straw argument. Red font or italics on random parts of speech both make the article more difficult to read and italics on dates do not. I agree that MOS:DOB can be taken to imply that italics should not be used on dates but not to the point at which it is unreasonable for an editor to come to a different conclusion in good faith or to the point at which we should go and tell him that he's doing it wrong.

Not all of the MoS is so concrete as you describe. For example, there is a part of this MoS that says (of section headers), "Capitalize the first letter of the first word and any proper nouns in headings, but leave the rest in lower case." This can be solidly interpreted to mean that title-style capitalization should not be used on Wikipedia section headers; the wording covers all cases of section headers. With regard to italics on dates, that's not the case with WP: ITALICS and one can make an argument for that not being the case with MOS:DOB. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:13, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Fellow writers- I am an amateur historian, very busy raising my family and doing my real job. I'm not an editor knowledgable of all the incredibly detailed comments made above. Nor do I have a great deal of time sorting through this stuff. I simply stumbled on a presentation that seemed to make one point of information more understandable faster for a simple, quick read. I didn't like it at first then grew on me, so thinking applying to simple Delaware would be a good testing tube. Nothing sacred and nothing I won't undue happily if the logic for doing so was present. But it seems to look better each time I look.

I am very anxious to comply format to the experts and the rules, but I also have some brain left and have been doing this very thing several years and have altered design of the information I've contribution to match what seems to be the rules many times, even if I don't like them. Meanwhile, from a couple of individuals, I constantly get bitter criticism for some creativity and doing no such thing. So, what to do, knowing there really is an allowance, for some easy way to make potential improvements that are essentially harmless. Our writing can't be that static.

I would appreciate the opportunity to marginally experiment with more readable ways to present this information, goodness knows what we do can always be improved. And please keep my sincere efforts for readability from the claws of individuals determined to set the rules strictly and for eternity for reasons beyond my understanding. Thanks for all your incredible insightful thinking...what I learned reading this is almost worth giving up my present heartfaced desire on this subject. I don't want a fight, but I do want a better presented article where possible. stilltim (talk) 20:18, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Just to add my 2 cents, it seems, reading MOS:DOB that all examples there give DOBs in Roman within parentheses, making that the de facto MOS for dates, even if not explicitly stated. Therefore, it seems that the standard already exists to not italicize dates. I'd stick with that. oknazevad (talk) 00:42, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Space after number sign

In the case where a number sign (#) is to be used (e.g. inside a tight table), should a space be placed between the sign and the number? For example, should one write "# 3" or "#3"? —LOL ^T/_C 02:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not inclined to use a space there. Does our current practice vary much, or do we generally favor the no-space option? -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:18, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I've seen it both ways, but the spaceless one looks like it would be better for a table. In most cases, though, I don't use # at all when making a list, just "1." etc. Can you give us a link to one of the tables you mean? Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:39, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I can't find a good example right now, but I'm asking this because there are several tennis-related articles that use number signs for seeds and rankings. —LOL ^T/_C 02:55, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd have to see some examples myself, but for orders. seeds and rankings, it might be as clear or clearer to use ordinals: 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 11th, 13th, etc., at the cost of maybe one more character (or none if # is followed by a space). —— Shakescene (talk) 03:18, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

¶ I find it easier to read with a space, since on first glance, # resembles a digit. If you're scanning down a column to catch 7. 8, 9, 10, 11, etc. it's easier with a space in front than if the first thing you see is identical #'s. I'm not sure which way this argues, but unspaced # is also a wikilink shortcut to sections and subsections in the same page, as in #Space after number sign. Although I'll probably go back some time to clean up my newcomer work, I used unspaced # before years this way in some lines of New York City mayoral elections#How the Boroughs voted. Also consider that # is more frequently used in North America for "No." than in other places, so it's not so instantly recognisable everywhere. As in so many other things, however, I think this is the kind of thing where guidance and advice are helpful, but prescriptions and rules are not. The last thing I want to see is some outside 'bot mechanically adding or removing intervening spaces which may have been deliberately inserted or omitted for specific reasons (clarity, space, legibility, subject-matter) by a table's creator or editors. —— Shakescene (talk) 02:49, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

The usage of spaced and unspaced number sign I've seen seems to be indicative that when it's an identifier (such as article #15234) it's unspaced, and when it's a rank or jersey number, it's spaced (Jersey # 24, ranked # 4 in the league). I don't particularly care either way, and I don't think the MoS should prescribe anything here, as the use of a number sign is probably field-dependant, but obviously articles should be consistent, and non-breaking spaces should be used to space.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 15:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Headbomb, namely use what's typical for the particular field involved with the article. While generally I believe the inclusion of a (non-breaking) space looks better and more readable, it isn't universally used, and sticking with whatever the source uses is a way to ensure a modicrum of consistancy. oknazevad (talk) 00:31, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal: a MoS section for the use of prepositions

In the phrases "a character [preposition] the [movie/tv show/novel/etc.]..." and "a member [preposition] the group", I propose that the MoS should state that the following prepositions be used:

• "in" for characters in movies and books
• "in" or "on" for characters on television series
• "of" for members of a group, such as a band
• "from" should never be used in any of these contexts

I often see phrases like "a character from the movie..." on disambiguation pages and in articles. To me, "from" makes it sound like the character emerged from film and began walking around, and it just plain reads like third-grade writing. I don't know if this is a matter of technical incorrectness, but it seems like something the MoS should address. Thoughts? » Swpb^{τ • ¢} 19:52, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

The use of "from" in "a character from the movie" might be annoying at times, but it usually isn't incorrect and it doesn't make Wikipedia look stupid. We shouldn't ban people from using words in correct, formal, intelligible ways unless those ways are unencyclopedic or confusing. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

There will inevitably be variations in idiom and personal style. Are we going to start discouraging "a passage from the Bible" or "an excerpt from the Court's opinion"? "A line from Shakespeare" (standing in for "a line from Shakespeare's plays") is much better to my eyes than "a line of Shakespeare" or "a line in Shakespeare", both of which seem slightly odd or ambiguous; but then why not "a character from Shakespeare" and thus "a line from Hamlet" and "a character from Macbeth"? I would still use "in" for a particular performer in a group or production, as "he'd played a small role in Romeo and Juliet" or "a character actor in Kenneth Branagh's Henry V." In this case the choice of prepositions helps to distinguish the rôle from the actor. [In some of these examples, one could also use a possessive formation with "of" as in "a line of Shakespeare's" or "one of Shakespeare's villains", but that doesn't work with the Bible.] Judgement and clarity are what's needed, but they can't easily be prescribed by rules in a manual. —— Shakescene (talk) 21:57, 4 July 2009 (UTC)