Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style

Date ranges for soap operas

For the dates format, why is it for years selected within one decade does it have to have the first two digits from the end year missing? Such as 1996-98. On the list of soap opera characters, the duration lists for the past characters of Hollyoaks and the current characters of Coronation Street are in this format. The lists look incomplete with some of the digits missing and I can't help feeling the rule seems misguided. Because it seems wrong I have tried to correct the lists and the editors keep reverting them. It just looks wrong in this format and I can't help wondering why it needs to be set out like this.82.38.49.218 (talk) 19:02, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

This belongs more on WT:MOSNUM than here. The most recent discussion about this was Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Archive 134#Year ranges 2. ― A. di M.​  19:40, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I am revising the section heading from Why do dates in duration lists of Soap Operas have to miss certain digits out if they are in the same decade? to Date ranges for soap operas. See WP:TPOC: "Section headings".

• Microcontent: Headlines and Subject Lines (Alertbox)

—Wavelength (talk) 20:27, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Didn't know about Template:Formerly. It had always irritated me when retitling a section broke links to it in edit summaries, and as a result I never did that at all. Nice to know about that template. ― A. di M.​  22:15, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Are these year-ranges in a table or infobox? Particularly where space is short, the two-digit closing year seems preferable. 10:08, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:YEAR: Years: point 3 (permanent link here) says the following.

• A closing CE or AD year is normally written with two digits (1881–86) unless it is in a different century from that of the opening year, in which case the full closing year is given (1881–1986).

—Wavelength (talk) 19:00, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Let me try and fill you in on the background behind this question. The IP, 82.38.49.218, does not like the use of the two-digit closing year, particularly in the articles List of Coronation Street characters and List of past Hollyoaks characters. He/she constantly changes this style, despite warnings and advice to look at WP:YEAR. On their talk page 82.38.49.218 has said "The Manual of Style is completely flawed and misguided and cannot possibly be adhered to when its "rules" don't seem to make logical sense." He/she was told to come here to bring up and discuss their issues with WP:YEAR. - JuneGloom Talk 15:06, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

A Google Books search shows only a slight preference for "1881–86" rather than "1881–1886", so neither "style looks lazy as if it has been put together by children of primary school age". So perhaps someone else can explain why we have that rule, and perhaps it should be eliminated. In any case, 82.38.49.218 is to be encouraged to take such questions here, rather than keep re-arguing them for however many specific articles are involved. However, as long as we have that rule, I will comply with it, as explained at User:Art LaPella/Because the guideline says so. Art LaPella (talk) 21:30, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Maybe in some articles the 1881-86 looks OK and is not important but in a list that is specifically recording dates it does not look aesthetically pleasing. I genuinely feel that in these Soap Opera lists it looks more presentable, complete and considerably better with all the digits present and not just the last two of the second year.82.38.49.218 (talk) 11:57, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Do you have more objective evidence such as style book citations, or is it just "I genuinely feel"? When I refine my Google Books search for lists, I get a similar result: a slight though statistically insignificant preference for "1881–86", like this admittedly old example. Art LaPella (talk) 22:54, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Many house styles prefer the two-digit closing number, for years and page ranges. In my view it's easier to recognise. In a space-poor table or infobox I can't imagine why editors would want otherwise. Tony (talk) 06:35, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't know how else I can prove my point. It just looks wrong with digits missing and uncompleted. I always feel the need to add the missing digits to the list in order for it to be complete. It looks whole and complete with all the digits added. I disagree that it is easier to recognize as the only people who would have trouble recognizing whole years would have to be incredibly stupid.82.38.49.218 (talk) 23:12, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

We believe you when you say it just looks wrong to you. The way to prove it looks wrong to others is to appeal to style books and other documents, as in Tony's admittedly vague "Many house styles" comment. As I showed above, others are about evenly split between the two styles, so I don't see much reason to prefer either. Art LaPella (talk) 23:44, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Does MOS:RETAIN override MOS:LQ?

Regarding this edit, does MOS:RETAIN (retaining the existing variety) override MOS:LQ (logical quotation)? Cunard (talk) 00:39, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I cannot see any conflict between MOS:RETAIN and MOS:LQ, Cunard. The absence of LQ is not a style recommended by the Manual of Style, so it can be overridden for conformity. If we were to generalise from such a retention, any style established in an article would be out of reach for MOS, which is counter to the role these guidelines play in the Project.

Noetica^Tea? 02:09, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

MoS LQ should not be in the MoS at all; banning American style punctuation does us no good and some harm. However, as long as it is still here, no I don't think this is particular case merits an override. If this were a long quote, a block quote or full sentence lifted from a source that used American punctuation, then RETAIN would apply. (If the original sentence Soueid used the words "project," "merit," and "hope" to describe his plan. were lifted whole from the source, then we would be required to keep the American punctuation.) However, the Wikieditor who placed the word "project" worked it into a new sentence designed for the article.

I actually raised a similar question a few years ago, is internal consistency more important than any one rule in the MoS, and I got brought up on AN/I for making such edits. Good luck. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:54, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

There's no evidence that there is an "American style" that's opposite to a "logical style". Neither style is particularly tied to an English language variant, as far as I've been able to tell. So RETAIN seems irrelevant here; we might as well stick with the consistent LQ style. Dicklyon (talk) 16:01, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

If the reason we're requiring British/LQ in all articles is that including a character not present in the original inside the quotation marks would be a misquotation, then how could transposing two characters in the middle of the quoted material not be a misquotation?

Actually there's lots of evidence that there are separate American and British styles. First, if almost all American writers do X and almost all American style guides require X while almost all British writers do Y and almost all British style guides require Y, then it is safe to say "X is American and Y is British," even if they are also other things too. Second, logical style is referred to as "British" and American style is referred to as "American" in a lot of our sources: [[1] [2]

Does this mean you have to find the evidence convincing? No. Does this mean you have to agree with APA and CMoS? No. But is there evidence that this is a split along national lines? Yes. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:49, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

@Dicklyon: Well, that only depends on what you mean by particularly. For certain values of particularly, date formats aren't particularly tied with countries either ([3][4]), and still we recommend 16 November in UK-related articles and November 16 in US-related ones. ― A. di M.​  17:55, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

The original question concerns relations between MOS:RETAIN and MOS:LQ, as illustrated by the linked diff; but the discussion (since I addressed the question) treats it as concerning MOS:QUOTE rather than MOS:RETAIN. Neither the question nor MOS:RETAIN mentions preservation of style in quotations. MOS:RETAIN is about the style established in an article. It's all right to change the topic; but let's be aware that this has happened.

Noetica^Tea? 20:17, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the original question, I agree with Noetica, RETAIN doesn't override LQ since LQ is the only style accepted. Darkfrog says we shouldn't change it if the quote contains TQ, I agree but this is not against LQ. If the quote contains "metres" but we're using US spelling in the article, we leave it; we don't change the quote. LQ doesn't change the quote. JIMp _talk·cont 20:40, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I said that long quotes, such as blockquotes, should be kept intact. This doesn't appear to be the case in the original poster's question; a single word is placed within quotation marks. I'm saying that if the quotation marks (with their adjacent punctuation) had appeared in the middle of a quotation, then they should not be converted from American to British or vice versa. Regarding what Cunard should do in this particular case, I agree with Noetica. Policies like ENGVAR and RETAIN should apply to punctuation, but, according to precedent, they don't. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:36, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you everyone for your input here. I followed MOS:LQ here but was reverted by the creator who used WP:RETAIN to justify his/her reversion. Per the discussion here that WP:RETAIN and MOS:LQ do not conflict with each other, I have reverted the creator's reversion. Cunard (talk) 23:12, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I have reverted:

(1) Please don't attempt to shut down conversations within a day of posing them; that's not how consensus is formed at all. Less than one day of discussion, with minimal participation (three users!), does not justify making sweeping conclusions as to policy. You and I know this equally well.

(2) The rationale for retaining the existing variety is to prevent exactly these sorts of pointless, arbitrary changes. There is a strong preference to use the style most strongly connected to the topic (American English for U.S. articles; British English for UK articles; Australian English for Australian articles) and in the absence of any national connection to the article topic, to retain the style of the first major editor. Here, the article in question is both tied to American style and written originally in American style. These both weigh extremely strongly to retaining the existing variety.

(3) Placing commas and periods within quotation marks is universally the style in the United States. There seemed to be some confusion as to this above. See, for instance:

A. APA style, AP style, Chicago style, and MLA style all prefer the dominant American rule. Chelsea Lee, AP Style (official blog) (August 11, 2011).

B. Strunk and White's authoritative, widely-cited Elements of Style (1918) states that: "Formal quotations, cited as documentary evidence, are introduced by a colon and enclosed in quotation marks."

C. "Put the period inside quotation marks. This is simply a rule in American English. There are no exceptions." Richard Lauchman: Punctuation at Work: Simple Principles for Achieving Clarity and Good Style (2010). American Management Association.

I don't go around changing British style to American style (at least not intentionally), especially on British topics. Nor should anyone, as here, go around changing American style to British style, especial on American topics.No useful purpose is served by changing one completely acceptable and internally-consistent form of English to another completely acceptable form of English. It is antithetical to the idea of an international encyclopedia to impose a single, particular national English variety. Neutrality^talk 23:52, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

But MOS:LQ is a more specific guideline than MOS:RETAIN and ENGVAR. So if MOS:LQ were intended to apply only to British articles, it would say so, rather than expecting the more general MOS:RETAIN and ENGVAR guidelines to explain details like quote marks. 3 users might not be a consensus, but the existence of the MOS:LQ guideline is prima facie evidence of a consensus, although we might clarify it by changing MOS:LQ to explicitly cover American English text. This is not a stylistic opinion; that is, I won't stop Neutrality and Darkfrog from changing MOS:LQ their way. Art LaPella (talk) 00:59, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Inserting a clarification is an idea I can get beyond. But I would disagree that the existence of one guideline precludes the other. The "leave acceptable English as it is" principle is equally explicit and clear as the quotation language, and if I recall correctly it is the more long-established principle, imposed to ensure that users don't do exactly what we saw here - swoop down on an article and change grammar from one for reason. Neutrality^talk 01:16, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

No guideline is intended to apply to every situation; hence the (misnamed) "Ignore All Rules", or more practically, its 12-word text. We can leave exceptions to be decided one at a time, as they come up, or we can describe an exception with a more detailed guideline. "Leave acceptable English as it is" could be used as an argument against the application of any rule in the Manual of Style, so that can't be what was intended; it has to mean don't change British English to U.S. or vice versa, and even that has exceptions. The goal of ensuring that users don't swoop down and change grammar also means national varieties of English, obviously not any possible grammar change, and the broader goal of stability is best served by everybody agreeing to follow the guidelines. Yes, LQ might be considered part of a national variety of English, but WP:LQ should make it clear that it isn't. Art LaPella (talk) 01:48, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality claims "It is antithetical to the idea of an international encyclopedia to impose a single, particular national English variety." Nonsense. It is perfectly acceptable and normal for a publication, including an encyclopedia, to establish any house style it wants to. It is perfectly legitimate to either revise submissions so they conform to the house style, or reject them. Trying to undermine the house style by strained reading of the manual of style is nasty and underhanded. Accept defeat. Now. Jc3s5h (talk) 01:07, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

"Accept defeat. Now"? Seriously? Wikipedia:Civility, please. Neutrality^talk 01:16, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely "leave acceptable English as it is". TQ is not acceptable, not here, per well established consensus. It doesn't matter how long your list of other style guides which disagree with ours is: they disagree with ours. WP has chosen LQ, use LQ or gain consensus to change the guideline. JIMp _talk·cont 01:45, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

1) Placing the period inside the quotation marks is not the universal American style. It is simply what the overwhelming majority does. There are a few exceptions, such as ACS and many computer programming style guides.

2) ENGVAR and RETAIN don't apply to punctuation but they should. As always, I am 100% behind changing WP:LQ to require, or at the absolute least, to allow American punctuation in articles that are otherwise written in American English.

Neutrality, what's really going on here is that a lot of the regulars on this page really really don't like American-style punctuation. (See Jimp's comment above; Jimp sees American punctuation as "unacceptable.") Some of them believe that it causes misquotations and errors. Some of them believe that the commas-always-in and commas-according-to-sense rules aren't really American and British, respectively. Yes WP:LQ conflicts with RETAIN and ENGVAR. But it's going to take more than a scolding to get them to change their minds about it. Stick around. Be polite. Listen to everyone. Show evidence and cite sources supporting your position. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:04, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Your words are well taken and appreciated. Some notes:

(1) Commas and periods going inside punctuation marks is as universal in American English as "logical quotation" is in British English. As cited above, all four major American style guides (many of which also govern outside the U.S. in various academic disciplines) concur. So does every other noted authority on North American grammar. It's undoubtedly taught in nearly every composition course imaginable. It is more than a prevailing practice: It is nearly-universally accepted doctrine.

(2) It's not just American usage, but also near-universal Canadian English usage as well. The University of Ottawa Writing Centre recommends it. So does the official style guide for the McGill-Queen's University Press.

(3) As you note, some "Manual of Style regulars" express a personal, apparently deep-seated (and rather bizarre) animus toward U.S. style. That's fine (although it shows some wacky ownership-like tendencies), but that doesn't change the fact that (a) the North American style is attested over more than 100 years of style guides and practice; (b) North American English and its punctuation style is used on millions of articles here, and practice should carry significant weight in interpreting prevailing style, and (c) the punctuation-inside-quotation marks is used in the variant of English that the majority of our readers and world of English-language writers use.

(4) I feel that to the extent that language conflicts (and I do not think it necessary does): we should go to (1) the more fundamental, principle-based rule (i.e., strong national ties followed by first major contributor determines grammar), and (2) the more common sense rule that is consistent with editing harmony (prevent arbitrary changes) and practice (i.e., both color and colour are acceptable here, in accordance with the national variety rules; there is no reason quotation marks are different). To say that there is a special "carve-out" for quotation marks, such that articles on North American-related topics should be modified to reflect British grammar, is in direct contravention of established policy and leads to an absurd result. Neutrality^talk 02:20, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you on most of these points. However, we should work by changing the MoS so that it is more in keeping with the sources, with common sense and with the principles of professional-quality writing rather than by working against the MoS. Bottom line, Cunard was following the rules when he or she reverted that change. The problem is the rule, not Cunard's relationship with it. If you go around changing British to American, even in situations in which it makes sense to do so you can be brought up on AN/I for it. I was. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:36, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, I don't really care about targeted by the self-appointed grammar police. I've been here a long time and my focus is on contributing content; I'm not intimidated by other people's foolishness or English-variety obsessions.

However, if you start a Wikipedia:Request for comment to clarify the Manual of Style to eliminate absurd result and bring it clearly in line with the longstanding national varieties of English policy, I would gladly participate and encourage wide participation. Neutrality^talk 02:58, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

It would be a significant modification, not a "clarification." Most of us, including those who disagree with the rule, are clear on its meaning and acknowledge its existence.

You're entitled to disagree with an element of the MoS, but it's rather unfair to suggest that those who seek to enforce it (and revert your non-compliant edits) are foolish, obsessive grammar police. —David Levy 03:13, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps it was strongly worded. Still, I think it quite fair to term the practice of changing grammar from one standard, acceptable variety to another silly and arbitrary, especially in the context that we explicitly don't change spelling from standard, acceptable variety to another. As to the number of articles that have been affected by this, I edit with some regularity and I haven't seen this issue crop up until today. Neutrality^talk 03:42, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

MOS:RETAIN (to which I've contributed) is part of MOS:ENGVAR, which directs users to MOS:PUNCT (encompassing MOS:LQ) for an explanation of our punctuation rules.

MOS:RETAIN correctly states that "an article should not be edited or renamed simply to switch from one valid use of English to another," not that such a change shouldn't be made for compliance with the MoS.

When I mentioned "a massive number" of articles affected, I was referring to a hypothetical scenario in which the MoS is altered to recommend typesetters' quotation in articles written in American English. —David Levy 04:15, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, it's quite reasonable to argue that we should use typesetters' quotation in articles written in American English, but that would constitute a significant alteration to a longstanding MoS rule (however "absurd" it might be).

For the record, I agree that it would have made more sense that way. However, I also feel that it's far too late for such a change (affecting a massive number of articles) to be practical, particularly given the relatively modest benefit (which, regardless, many would argue is outweighed by benefits of the status quo). —David Levy 03:13, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality:

Interesting username, under the circumstances. You are an admin and have been on the Project since 2004, it seems. Must I remind you about assuming good faith, and about the need for civility? Talk of "self-appointed grammar police" or "other people's foolishness" is unhelpful. So was this, from you:

As you note, some "Manual of Style regulars" express a personal, apparently deep-seated (and rather bizarre) animus toward U.S. style. That's fine (although it shows some wacky ownership-like tendencies), ...

The first accusation is unfounded; if it were well-founded, and if LQ is to be strictly identified as non-American, then some Americans who post on this page have a "personal, apparently deep-seated (and rather bizarre) animus toward U.S. style". The second accusation, concerning ownership, is cheap and easy to level. Some of us are staunch defenders of MOS for the sake of stability and readability in the Project's 6,937,059 articles. That is not to be confused with ownership. I don't agree with everything in MOS by any means; but I abide by it when I edit. Do you think that the "British" preference for single quote marks should have equal standing with the "American" preference for double quotes? I don't; but when I write or edit elsewhere according to Cambridge norms in which single quotes rule, I do it without complaint.

In both cases (quotes, and LQ versus TQ) there are compelling reasons favouring one way over the other. It is not simply a matter of evolved regional differences, as with spelling. Just as the metric system is demonstrably superior to alternatives, so are double quotes by default, and LQ by default. That has been the judgement here; but even if we disagree, we might still see merit in consistency, and in the avoidance of thousands of needless squabbles at articles – like the squabble at Mohamad Anas Haitham Soueid, which brought Cunard and you here. Needlessly, if there is a recommendation at MOS and it is respected.

It would be a separate matter to initiate, yet again, a properly labelled and well-advertised discussion of LQ through an RFC, on this talkpage. Do so if you are inclined to disturb a long-standing guideline here. That is every editor's prerogative, of course.

Noetica^Tea? 03:08, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

As I understand it, double quotation marks are acceptable in British English (the Guardian, Telegraph, and Times of London appear to use it). It's fundamentally different from enforcing a style that is non-standard in North American English, especially on North American articles. As for "needless squabbles" - such squabbles are promoted, not discouraged, by a rule that seeks to use one particular variety of English usage (a minority one, at that) universally, especially when that has never been our policy for spelling or word choice at all. It is likely to confuse and cause conflict much more than if we use our standard English varieties practice which has served us well for many years. Neutrality^talk 03:46, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

When I became acquainted with Wikipedia, its exclusive use of logical quotation surprised me. (As an American, I was accustomed to using typesetters' quotation.) But irrespective of whether this longstanding house style rule is sensible, it clearly exists.
Neutrality is badly misapplying WP:RETAIN, which advises against unneeded changes from one MoS-sanctioned style to another, not from a non-MoS-sanctioned style to an MoS-sanctioned style. (As Art LaPella noted, Neutrality's interpretation would prevent us from maintaining any style guideline, provided that an alternative constituted "acceptable English.")
I find it interesting that a dispute arose regarding this particular MoS rule, as it's one that I've cited to dispel the mistaken belief that WP:RETAIN means "permit every widespread style element in existence." —David Levy 03:13, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I do not argue that we should "permit every widespread style element in existence." That is not my interpretation, nor has anyone suggesting that. There are some style elements that we don't use (for example, we bold article titles in lead sections, when we could just as easily italicize them), but those elements have no acceptable-grammar implications. For these, our standards are uncontroversial; they promote efficiency and there is no reason not to have them.

Here, the issue is fundamentally different because (1) quotations marks and punctuation usage are an integral part of grammar in any English varieties; (2) we have a longstanding policy that English varieties should be chosen, and retained, according to topical ties and the first major contributor (in spelling and word usage; e.g., color or colour acceptable; use of "cookie" in either U.S. or British context is acceptable) and (3) it naturally follows that punctuation, too, falls under (or should fall under) the same rule. Nobody is arguing we should have crazy, wacky rules; what is being said is that punctuation shouldn't have an inexplicable "carve-out" from the general rule. Neutrality^talk 03:42, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I understand the distinction, largely agree (in principle) with what you've written above (which is more specific than some of your previous statements), and don't include you among those arguing that we should "permit every widespread style element in existence." (I was referring to past discussions.) —David Levy 04:15, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

This horse has been dead so long it has decayed past the point of stinking. Rather than continuing to beat it, go read Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/quotation and punctuation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jc3s5h (talk • contribs) 03:35, 17 November 2011‎ (UTC)

David, Jc3s5h, the reason this issue keeps coming up is because WP:LQ is a bad or at least an essentially problematic rule. We have ENGVAR and RETAIN saying one thing (that Wikipedia allows/celebrates different varieties of English), and we have WP:LQ saying the exact opposite (that Wikipedia allows only British). It's not a dead horse; it's a perennial. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:58, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

The above comment was written by Jc3s5h. I accidentally added my signature when appending {{unsigned}}. (My apologies for the confusion.)

As stated elsewhere in the section, my opinion is we should have taken a different approach (using typesetters' quotation in articles written in American English), but it's too late for such a change to be practical. —David Levy 04:15, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Why is it too late to change the MoS? A lot of featured articles already use American punctuation, and, as Neutrality has said, many regular articles do too. It's not like we'd have to go and correct the punctuation of American-spelling article in a day; it's that people would be allowed to do so, as Neutrality did in the case under discussion. This would legitimize something that's already going on.Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:24, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Darkfrog24 and Neutrality can wish for a change to the MOS concerning logical quote marks. My wish is for a policy that imposes a mandatory waiting period before a new RfC may be introduced that is substantially the same as a previous RfC. Perhaps it should be a sliding scale, 6 months for 2 participants up to 2 years for 100 participants. Jc3s5h (talk) 04:34, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

You make a compelling argument, Darkfrog. My impression has been that most of our articles comply with the current rule, but I've never actually paid much attention (and easily could have overlooked many instances of typesetters' punctuation, particularly given the fact that it was drilled into me throughout my education.) And if I recall correctly, one of my earliest edits (before I'd seen the MoS or even registered an account) was a well-meaning change from logical punctuation to typesetters' punctuation.

I'd be interested in seeing an approximate breakdown of our current usage in American English articles. (I don't know how easy it would be to create one, however.) —David Levy 04:42, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Of the 206 or so featured articles that have appeared since April, 10 have used only American style on their big day, 6 have used mostly American style, 66 have used only British, 55 have used mostly British, 37 have been more or less half, 13 have used none and I classified 19 as "other." Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:46, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Are you saying that most conform to LQ, or nearly so? That's good. Dicklyon (talk) 05:03, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Those are the articles most likely to have been edited to follow an LQ policy (because they went through the FAC process and thus have been extensively edited). I would imagine the proportion would be much lower in other articles, particularly in North American-related articles. Neutrality^talk 05:04, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality—Yup. Dicklyon—If 111/206 is "most," then yes. If 111/206 is "a little more than half," then no. If we exclude "none" and "other," it comes to between 63 and 64%. Darkfrog24 (talk) 05:12, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

111 out of a total of 206 looks somewhat weeker than 111 mostly or only British (i.e. LQ, right) vs 16 mostly or only American (TQ). Above I'd called TQ unacceptable. Let me just clarify that I'm not refering to my preference but to the current WP guidelines. Yes, it is "quite fair to term the practice of changing grammar from one standard, acceptable variety to another silly and arbitrary" but TQ is not acceptable inasmuch as it is against our guidelines. These are the guidelines, if you disagree with them, you've got every right to do so, but if you're suggesting that there's no reason to have them, I'd disagree with that. The long-standing WP:LQ guideline is based on the principle of not changing a quote. It may be argued that the changes made by TQ are regular enough as generally not to cause significant miscommunication. This may be true but the fact remains that TQ does change the quote. This puts the LQ vs TQ issue into a different boat than "colourise" vs "colourize" vs "colorize". JIMp _talk·cont 06:49, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

But that's just it. American punctuation doesn't change the content of the quoted material. Learning that is part of learning how to read. Schoolchildren see the teacher write "She said 'apples,' peaches,' and pears'" on the board and they learn that the comma is part of the process, not part of a fruit. It's kind of like how schoolchildren in British-ish areas learn that "centre" is pronounced "sen-ter" and not "sen-treh." The -tre spelling looks counterintuitive and it looks like it would confuse people, but it doesn't.

Can you offer evidence, Jimp, that American punctuation changes quoted material? Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:38, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

This is an important point. In mainstream American/Canadian English, it's understood that commas and periods (full stops) appearing within quotation marks are not necessarily parts of the quoted material. The assertion that typesetters' quotation "changes the quote" relies on the application of a rule that simply doesn't exist (outside certain specialty publications) in these English varieties.

Certainly, logical quotation draws a distinction not present in typesetters' quotation, and it's reasonable to argue that Wikipedia benefits from the added specificity. It's unreasonable, conversely, to suggest that typesetters' quotation is inherently wrong. —David Levy 19:28, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

So what you're saying, David Levy, is "It looks like the added specificity British/LQ might prevent problems on Wikipedia." The question, then, is "What problems?"

A few months ago, I asked "Has anyone ever seen a problem on Wikipedia that could be attributed to American punctuation? What did it look like? Any errors in subsequent editing?" I was expecting some waffling, "Well, I saw one but it was so long ago that I don't remember," or "I saw some, but I don't want to go dig up the page histories," but that's not what happened. Not counting people who answered, "American punctuation itself is always an error," no one could remember even one.

We've seen that American punctuation is far from absent from Wikipedia. If problems that can be attributed to American punctuation are so rare under ordinary Wikipedia conditions that not even Noetica could remember even one case, then any benefits that British/LQ might offer are outweighed by the benefits of allowing people to use contextually correct punctuation. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:22, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I can understand why some people prefer logical quotation's additional specificity (particularly if they're conditioned to expect it), but I'm not aware of any significant problems caused by typesetters' punctuation. So no, it doesn't appear to me that our longstanding rule prevents such problems. (Like you, however, I welcome examples.) —David Levy 22:21, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

If you consider the quote to be that which is within the inverted commas, then, by definition, TQ changes the quote in that it puts stuff within the inverted commas that doesn't belong to the quote. You might argue that this definition of "quote" is based on LQ and doesn't apply to TQ, that these punctuation marks added within the inverted commas are understood not to belong to the quote. The problem is, though, with TQ we cannot always be sure whether a punctuation mark is or isn't part of the quote whereas with LQ is perfectly clear. So perhaps what I'd called the principle of not changing the quote should be rephrased as a principle of clarity. With LQ is is clear whether or not a punctuation mark was part of the quote. Therefore it still makes sense to consider this as a special case rather than lumping it with other ENGVAR issues such as spelling and date formatting ("color" is as clear as "colour" and "18 Nov" is as clear as "Nov 18"). Consensus has shown that editors value this clarity. JIMp _talk·cont 01:26, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

But I don't. Jimp, have you ever seen a style guide or other source say "every character between the quotation marks must be from the original"? If you wanted to put the claim that every character between the quotation marks/inverted commas must be from the original into a Wikipedia article, would you be able to find a source that says so?

British/LQ style isn't clear; it's silent. When the period is inside the quotation marks, we don't know what the original punctuation was. When the period is outside the quotation marks, we don't know what the original punctuation was. In both cases, we have to look at the source material. With regard to information provided, British and American styles do about the same.

If American punctuation causes so much confusion that it must be treated differently from spelling and date systems, then please point to at least one case of that actually happening on Wikipedia. If it's so rare that you've never seen it happen, then it's not a big enough problem to merit requiring incorrect punctuation in American English articles. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:47, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

If you do decide to answer my question, either here or just to yourself, then consider this: Have you ever seen anyone on Wikipedia get confused about dates? Have you ever seen anyone mistake April 10 for October 4 because the date was written 4-10-2011 or 10-4-2011? Like punctuation, it's pretty well divided along national lines, and it sure looks like it would confuse people. How often have you seen it happen? Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:14, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Not all editors value this clarity, no, but there are enough that the consensus has been in favour of LQ for years. I'm afraid I don't have a list of style guides to prove that there is support of LQ out there. I learnt what inverted commas were many years ago and used them in a logical way for decades before I'd ever heard of this TQ vs LQ tiff. Then I discovered that there's a name for my way of punctuating. With LQ you don't need a list of arbitary rules, inverted commas enclose quotes, that's it. It was decided that WP should similarly follow logic inspite of the fact that some prefer not to (i.e. to use TQ). WP:MOS is not an article; it's a set of guidelines. It doesn't require reliable sources; it requires consensus. We're all free to challenge consensus but this guideline has yet to be successfully challenged. If though, you'd still like to see some backing up of LQ in the world out there, I believe SMcCandlish's essay (which you've read, Darkfrog) has a bunch.

I'm not quite sure I'm getting you when you say LQ style isn't clear but silent. With LQ if there is a full stop within the inverted commas, it's part of the quote. With TQ, it might or might not be. When the full stop is outside with LQ (it doesn't happen with TQ) there are a number of things that this could entail; perhaps it's unimportant, perhaps no punctuation is possible, perhaps it's obvious.

I'm not trying to insist that TQ causes so much confusion that it must be treated differently to spelling and date formats. I'm offering an explanation of the fact that it has been treated differently until now.

Yes, I have seen confusion caused by the use of all numeric dates (like "4/10/2011"). JIMp _talk·cont 03:27, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but in British/LQ rules, the writer not supposed to put the period inside the quotation mark for sentence fragments, short-form works, etc. When either American or British styles are used correctly, no situation arises in which British provides more information than American. Also, here's a question specific to Wikipedia conditions. If I see a sentence fragment with a period inside, I don't know if that period was present or not because I don't know if the editor who placed it was using British or American style, don't know if the editor was using it correctly, etc. (That's something not likely to be much of an issue for someone who's reading a work that does not have multiple nonprofessional writers.)

The rules of British style are just as arbitrary as the rules of American style. Some guys back in 1906 thought that one thing seemed more appealing than another and got a lot of other people to agree. That's all. British style is called logical, but we could just as easily make the case that it is more logical to always put periods and commas inside the quotation marks, because it's more consistent, because it's easier to teach, because it's easier to copy edit or for whatever reason.

Safe to say you've seen more confusion stemming from date formats than you have from American punctuation? I've been editing a lot of science papers this week and I notice that geneticists tend to use beta-actin as a baseline when assessing gene expression. I was trying to use date formats as a sort of a control group, an example of something for which the occasional problem has been observed. Actual problems caused by American style still seem a bit like Bigfoot. Lots of people believe in them, but no one seems to have a photo that doesn't turn out to be of some backpacker who hasn't shaved in a while. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:07, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Darkfrog:

Earlier you wrote this:

If problems that can be attributed to American punctuation are so rare under ordinary Wikipedia conditions that not even Noetica could remember even one case, then any benefits that British/LQ might offer are outweighed by the benefits of allowing people to use contextually correct punctuation.

Who says I can't remember a case? When have I ever said that? I'm tired of you pushing this same spurious point every time the topic comes up; so I thought of just one article to go to that was likely to have quotes I could easily check: Pride and Prejudice. Here is the first quote I found in the article:

He is "not a sensible man, and the deficiency of nature had been but little assisted by education or society." Mr Collins is obsequious, [...]

That style of quoting needlessly gives a false impression of how the character was described, and of the way a sentence ends in this author's writing. Here is the actual text (the first sentence of Chapter 15):

Mr Collins was not a sensible man, and the deficiency of nature had been but little assisted by education or society; the greatest part of his life having been spent under the guidance of an illiterate and miserly father; and though he belonged to one of the universities, he had merely kept the necessary terms, without forming at it any useful acquaintance.

Soon we find in the article this quote from a secondary source, duly referenced:

This has been defined as "the free representation of a character's speech, by which one means, not words actually spoken by a character, but the words that typify the character's thoughts, or the way the character would think or speak, if she thought or spoke".[4]

This quote affirms for us that the article distinguishes between ." and ". at the end of the end of a quotation. In other words, we are led to believe that LQ is in play. So does this:

[...] the final chapter of Fanny Burney's Cecilia, called "Pride and Prejudice", where [...]

And several other instances give the same impression of care in quoting sources, though in other instances the care is clearly absent.

Now, what if the source were not one I could check? What if I needed to quote, on of off Wikipedia, what Wikipedia quotes about Mr Collins? Suppose I want to use LQ in my own text:

According to Wikipedia's quotation, Austen says of Mr Collins that he is "not a sensible man, and the deficiency of nature had been but little assisted by education or society[ ". or ." ]

I could not tell how to punctuate the end of my sentence. Prudence would dictate this:

"[...] by education or society".

After all, I would be out on a limb, and in fact in error, if I did it this way:

"[...] by education or society."

The only excuse would be that I am faithfully replicating Wikipedia's error!

It is exactly where the article fails to use LQ that the problem occurs; and the inconsistency in the article makes matters even worse. It is hard to escape the conclusion: consistent use of LQ offers the best defence against misleading our readers. If MOS recommended that LQ be used or not used, with consistency only within an article, the difficulty I sketch above would still be there. And anyway, the best way to ensure consistency in an article is to recommend just one way, for every article. As the guideline stands, editors have some hope of learning what is expected. And then, above all, experienced and responsible editors can set an example of respecting the well-chosen and well-settled guidelines we have in place here. That is what happens with featured articles, up to a point. This sort of rigour is the way forward, subject to small and very carefully judged corrections in our bearing.

 

Darkfrog, that is the first quote in the first article I checked. A more compelling case could easily be made, given time and patience, looking further through the riches of Wikipedia. But I do not have that time, and I will continue my patience only if this matter is dealt with rationally and without misrepresentation in future. Take care.

Noetica^Tea? 07:50, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Who said you couldn't remember any cases of problems caused by American punctuation? You did. [5] Post is signed 23:50, 5 August.

"Do you recall any instances of American punctuation causing any non-hypothetical misquotations or errors in subsequent editing on Wikipedia?"

No I don't. But:

(Followed by a list of other points.) If you've remembered something now that you didn't then or if you've changed your mind, that's one thing, but I'm certainly not misrepresenting what you said.

Regarding your examples, you still haven't shown any problems that are created by American punctuation. 1) Someone quoted a line from Pride and Prejudice and placed a period at the end of it. Where is the problem or error? The period is part of the quotation process. Regardless of where the period is placed, the quote does not misrepresent the book or the character. 2—on) The use of British style in the article might mean that British style is being used consistently or it might mean that a mix of British and American styles are being used. In the 207 featured articles that I examined, 98 used a mixture of British and American.

If you want to write your own article copying a full sentence from Wikipedia, then, if you're writing it in American English, placing the period or comma inside the quotation marks is what you should do. This does not make the claim that the period was present in the original, so there is no misquotation. If you're writing your article in British English, then you would have to check the original material to be sure or make your best guess.

But Wikipedia does not recommend one way for every article. Wikipedia explicitly permits both British and American English, as well as Canadian, Australian, and others. In British English, placing periods and commas according to sense, as Fowler put it, is correct. In American English, it is incorrect. It is better to be consistently correct than consistently British. Having one rule for dates, spelling and other matters but making a magical exception for punctuation is pretty far from consistent. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:00, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Darkfrog, you write: "If you're writing your article in British English, then you would have to check the original material to be sure or make your best guess." But I set up the case first by using a checkable source (Pride and Prejudice), and then by extrapolating to instances in which I could not check the source, but had only Wikipedia's quote available. And as you pretty well admit, Wikipedia's quote (if it forfeits the precision of LQ) let's me down. The quote is in a way disabled for further use.

As for trying to catch me in an inconsistency, nice try! It can be done, I'm sure; but you still misrepresent the facts here. Look closely at what you quote. In August of this year you asked exactly this: "Do you recall any instances of American punctuation causing any non-hypothetical misquotations or errors in subsequent editing on Wikipedia?" And no, I did not; and I answered accurately and at length. But you report it now in these terms: "If problems that can be attributed to American punctuation are so rare under ordinary Wikipedia conditions that not even Noetica could remember even one case, ...". That's not the same. I responded accurately this time to what you wrote this time – again, at length. The points I went on to make last time are also applicable in the present discussion, since your arguments are recycled here anyway. Let editors search on this, in Archive 125: "Famously, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

Sometimes we need to settle things and move on: not crank up the same tired old discussion every time, as if it were worthwhile or new. Do you see me harping at length on ellipses, possessives, or the naming of centuries every time the opportunity comes up? No. I'll make my comment about those provisions, but I won't launch a diatribe to change MOS because those guidelines are not quite to my liking. Not every time!

Noetica^Tea? 20:52, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, I looked closely. I think it boils down to distinguishing between a "problem" and an "error". Art LaPella (talk) 22:10, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Can we please drop the semantic argument about who said or didn't say x? It really doesn't matter. Let's attempt to understand each other's concerns.

The relevant issue regarding typesetters' quotation is that it doesn't specify whether a trailing comma or period (full stop) is attributable to the quoted source. The dispute, as I understand it, pertains to the existence/nature of a resultant problem.

It appears that some of us are on slightly different wavelengths, which is causing confusion and acrimony. Here's a rough summary of the back-and-forth:

TQ proponents: "What's the problem with TQ?"

LQ proponents: "TQ doesn't convey whether certain punctuation is part of the quotation."

TQ proponents: "Okay, but what problem does this cause?"

LQ proponents: "Huh? I just told you the problem."

TQ proponents: "No, you didn't. You noted a difference, but you didn't explain how it causes a problem."

LQ proponents: "That difference is the problem."

And around and around we go. Jimp, for example, refers to the ambiguity as a "problem" in and of itself, which is difficult for those of us accustomed to typesetters' quotation to understand. (We were educated to regard the distinction as unimportant and unwritten, so we have little or no concept of any harm caused by its omission.) Meanwhile, for someone accustomed to logical quotation, I assume that it seems similarly difficult to understand why we're requesting elaboration regarding the harm caused by a patently obvious and inexcusable deficiency.

However, buried within the exchange is the point that logical quotation is directly adaptable to typesetters' quotation, while typesetters' quotation is not directly adaptable to logical quotation. In other words, if an article is written with logical quotation, a third party can easily convert it to typesetters' quotation without a need to consult the original sources. Conversely, an article written with typesetters' quotation lacks information essential to a third party that wishes to republish it with logical quotation.

Whether this justifies a rule requiring American/Canadian English articles to incorporate a punctuation style explicitly deemed "incorrect" in American/Canadian schools is debatable, but I must acknowledge that I find the argument compelling. —David Levy 22:32, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Art LaPella: "I think it boils down to distinguishing between a 'problem' and an 'error'." That's part of it, yes. But as David Levy puts it, "Can we please drop the semantic argument about who said or didn't say x? It really doesn't matter." I will not do that, provided Darkfrog does not distort particular wording (my particular wording) in a way that favours the case against LQ, knowingly or otherwise.

David Levy: Yes; except that I consider it unhelpful to continue characterising the TQ–LQ divide as an American–British divide (or as any similar regional divide). There are, for one thing, different implementations of the LQ idea. What dominates in British publishing is one variant (or perhaps there are two or a couple more involved). The divide between technical usages and popular usages is probably more relevant to the adoption of LQ on Wikipedia, and it is founded on considerations of simplicity in use, clarity, and freedom from ambiguity, not on regional allegiances. Same for the preference for double quotes, straight quotes, and simple three-point ellipses (not pre-formed ones, and not ". . ." which requires hard spaces). I have said before (as Darkfrog can no doubt verify) that adjustments are needed in the current LQ guideline; but I am not going to embark on that, when someone might pick up an opportunity for unsettling it. It would all cost too much time.

Noetica^Tea? 01:22, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

No one is suggesting that the divide is purely regional, but we're discussing the style used in non-specialist encyclopedia articles written in American/Canadian English.

I don't know how the matter is handled in your country, but in mine (the U.S.), teachers commonly treat logical quotation as an error (i.e. something for which points are deducted and/or corrections are made).

I'm not suggesting that this automatically precludes the use of logical quotation in American/Canadian English Wikipedia articles, but I hope that you can understand why some editors regard it as anomalous. —David Levy 02:57, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

That's right: no one is suggesting that the divide is purely regional. I did not say anyone did. But some emphasize (this time and always before) an American–British divide for the topic. That is, as I say, unhelpful. (Nor do I even think that is so clear a distinction between such regional varieties these days. Especially as the web continues its unifying work, here on Wikipedia and elsewhere, things might become more level. As with writing, as with printing, as with television.) And yes, of course I can understand the difficulty some have with LQ. Everywhere! Same for en dashes, if they are unfamiliar with contemporary best practice in anglophone publishing. And same for straight quotes and apostrophes as practical adaptations for collaborative web writing, and so on. I don't like everything in MOS myself, as I have said above. But I think you agree: it's best to respect standards that are long-established and rationally based, even if we can find some fault with them.

Noetica^Tea? 04:20, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

We should add this line: TQ: But British punctuation doesn't say whether the punctuation was part of the quote or not either.

Noetica: Absence of evidence isn't evidence of presence either, now is it?

Regarding whether American/TQ is American and British/LQ is British. I've repeatedly (and in this topic) offered sources showing that the national divide is real. Please offer sources of your own that support your belief that it isn't. Darkfrog24 (talk) 06:21, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

1. I'm unclear on why you regard discussion of a regional divide as unhelpful. To my understanding, it's factual that typographical quotation strongly predominates in American and Canadian English (to the extent that teachers treat logical quotation as an error).

2. While people naturally experience the greatest ease when writing in the styles to which they're accustomed, the argument isn't that logical quotation is more difficult to use; it's that it's incongruous with mainstream American/Canadian English. Perhaps the incongruity is justified, but it nonetheless seems unusual.

3. Yes, I agree that adherence to the MoS (including elements with which one personally finds fault) is important. Unless and until a rule is modified/removed (as a result of consensus or a lack thereof), it's an essential source of stability in a collaborative environment. —David Levy 06:32, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

It's not that talking about regional variation is unhelpful; it's talking about regional variation highlights why WP:LQ really shouldn't be here. This whole question came up because Neutrality wanted found WP:LQ to be in conflict with WP:RETAIN. ENGVAR and RETAIN are all about national varieties of English and when to use which one on Wikipedia. Fans of WP:LQ like to maintain that British style isn't really British and American style isn't really American because if that were true, then arguments like "We should be following ENGVAR" or "We shouldn't use British punctuation in articles on clearly American topics," etc. which some pretty strong arguments in favor of permitting American punctuation, would hold no weight. There are also probably a couple of people on here who actively want to erase regional differences between varieties of English and create one international style and they figure, probably correctly, that Wikipedia would be a reasonably effective place to push that.

If British/LQ becomes some kind of international alternative in five or ten or twenty years, we can always change the MoS then, but right now, that's not the case. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:55, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Does MOS:RETAIN override MOS:LQ? (part 2)

Here are some examples of expressions where, in each case, a quotation from the beginning to the comma can be misleading if the comma is not quoted.

• He said that he would be there, if he could be excused from his job.
• Climate change will extinguish many species, unless humans radically change their lifestyles.
• residents of London, Ontario
• This treatment cures all ailments, except those of type Z.
• We enjoyed the experience, but not without some problems.

—Wavelength (talk) 00:30, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

In each and every instance, quoting only up to the comma is inherently misleading (and therefore should not be done), irrespective of whether a period (full stop) appears within the quotation marks. —David Levy 01:09, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Very well; and using LQ consistently would enable the inference that a quoted comma was indeed quoted, and not added as an artefact of the operation of quoting. Still, the main thing is not to misrepresent what is quoted. LQ is only one of the safeguards against that, and others are needed. Like this, when the textual and semantic details are important:

He said "[c]limate change will extinguish many species, [...]", not "global warming will extinguish many species".

Noetica^Tea? 01:22, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

What I (and others accustomed to typesetters' quotation) have difficulty understanding is why it's inherently important to know whether the comma is attributable to the original source. (I understand the argument regarding republication by parties using logical quotation, but I fail to grasp the underlying need.)

In each of the above examples, I don't believe that it's advisable to quote only up to the comma, as this significantly alters the text's meaning. But if this is done, I don't see how knowledge of whether the comma is part of the quotation meaningfully affects a reader's comprehension of the quoted material.

To be clear, I'm not arguing with you. I sincerely wish to gain a better understanding of the issue. —David Levy 02:57, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm one who is "accustomed to typesetters' quotation" too. I have to be, if I were not naturally. But I see the rationality of LQ, as you do; and I see the rationality of having a single consistent recommendation on Wikipedia (as you do, right?). As for what matters in fidelity to a quoted source, it is hard to predict the needs of readers and the sorts of misunderstandings that can be spawned by not caring. Rarely do writers and editors set out to confuse readers; but they often achieve it nonetheless.

I can see you are not arguing with me. You do not, for a start, identify and criticise points that I actually make ☺!

Noetica^Tea? 04:29, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Omitting the words that come after the comma would be a misquotation regardless of whether American or British style is used. American punctuation does not make the claim that the comma or period was part of the quoted material, so it does not make the claim that the sentence stops at any particular place.

I would support WP:LQ if Wikipedia discarded ENGVAR and required every article to use British spelling, grammar and other conventions only. That would be consistency. Our current rule is trendiness and codified pet peeves. Darkfrog24 (talk) 06:21, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Litmus test: If you saw "He said he would be there"[period] or "residents of London"[period] or "The treatment cures all ailments"[period] wouldn't you revert it as a misquotation? You would really go "Well the period's outside, so everything's fine, not deceitful at all"? Darkfrog24 (talk) 06:25, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, I see value in Wikipedia-wide consistency. However, I also see value in adhering to an English variety's usual conventions when writing in said variety, except when there's a good reason not to. (We agree, I presume, that mandating consistent American or British spelling throughout Wikipedia would be a bad idea.)

The issue, as I see it, is that there is disagreement regarding the existence of a good enough reason to deviate from the quotation style prevalent in American/Canadian English when writing in those varieties. Personally, I see reasonable arguments from both sides. But I regard our longstanding rule as the default and would need to see a stronger argument from the pro-TQ camp to be convinced that it makes sense for the MoS to be changed (irrespective of what would have been the optimal choice in the first place). I also believe, of course, that we should abide by the MoS unless and until such a change is made.

I'm sorry if you regard my previous response as a straw man of sorts. I certainly didn't intend to distort your position or anyone else's. I simply don't understand what essential information (apart from that which is needed to author an LQ version of the text) is lost in TQ. —David Levy 06:32, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Sting your own position does not misrepresent mine, D. Levy. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:46, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I was primarily addressing the statement that I "do not, for a start, identify and criticise points that [Noetica] actually [makes]" (the seriousness of which is unclear to me, as a "smiley" emoticon follows), but I'm glad that I haven't misrepresented your position. —David Levy 17:20, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Circa

What justification is there for this MoS edit?

The edit by Kotniski (talk · contribs) occurred on 13 August 2011 in MoS#Abbreviations with the insertion of the sentence "Circa. – To indicate approximately, the unitalicised abbreviation c. (followed by a space) is preferred over circa, ca., or approx". Why is c. preferred over circa by whom and under whose authority? This change, I believe, is not consistent with "Use c. only for dates in small spaces and in the opening sentence of a biography (see MOS:DOB). It should not be italicised in normal usage. Do not use ca." found in MoS (abbreviations)#miscellaneous initialisms (and inserted July 2011.

--Senra (Talk) 13:53, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

You're right, it's inconsistent, and therefore I will stop changing "circa" to "c." except where those inconsistent guidelines agree, or until that inconsistency is reconciled. Art LaPella (talk) 16:45, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I think MoS#Abbreviations just needs re-wording slightly or we should add examples such as

• "WRONG: circa two-thousand soldiers"
• "RIGHT: c. two-thousand soldiers"
• "WRONG: c. 1800" (except where brevity is warranted in an infobox for example)
• "RIGHT: circa 1800"

--Senra (Talk) 20:21, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I just realized Kotniski didn't invent the circa rule in August; all he did was move that guideline, which is much older. The rule's most direct ancestor traces all the way back to 2005. It was transferred here in 2007. Art LaPella (talk) 21:48, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Glossary of style guide terms

Someone might wish to start the page "Glossary of style guide terms". It can be categorized in Category:Glossaries.
—Wavelength (talk) 03:57, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Diacritics in article titles

There is a discussion about diacritics in article titles at User talk:Jimbo Wales#Diacrtics in our article titles when the RSs do otherwise (permanent link here).
—Wavelength (talk) 16:59, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Corrected link Art LaPella (talk) 21:25, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. The heading was corrected at 18:47, 19 November 2011.

—Wavelength (talk) 23:45, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

The discussion has been archived at User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 88#Diacritics in our article titles when the RSs do otherwise.

—Wavelength (talk) 17:09, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Elaboration on MOS:TIES

I suggest that further elaboration be made with the following statement in Strong Nation Ties to a Topic: "For articles about modern writers or their works, it is sometimes decided to use the variety of English in which the subject wrote".

This should probably be expanded with examples such as these:

• Newer Dragon Quest games, which are localized in British English in all English-speaking regions, should have their articles also be written in British English. Older games in the series that use American English should have their articles written in American English.

• Games developed by Bioware Edmonton should use Canadian English (with "Spectre" instead of "Specter" in the Mass Effect series) with "day month year", or little endian, date format (as can be seen on the save/load screen in the Mass Effect series). Games developed by non-Canadian Bioware studios, such as Bioware Austin's Star Wars: The Old Republic, should likewise use American English with middle endian date format, as shown in the promotional website for that game.

• Despite Minecraft creator Markus "Notch" Persson being Swedish, he actually prefers American English as shown on some of his Twitter posts. Therefore, American English should be used on both his page and Minecraft's.

It should be made clear that the subject's preferred dialect ought to be taken into account more often, as seen on J. R. R. Tolkien's page (with Oxford-style English being used instead of the more common British spellings, such as "–ise"). This only applies, however, if said dialect is considered formal and recognized as a valid dialect to write in Wikipedia. Otherwise, the formal dialect for the subject's home country is used.

This should be used because it can reduce ambiguity for certain subjects. For example:

• Ben "Yahtzee" Croshaw was born in the United Kingdom, but currently lives in Australia. When Croshaw's distinctly-English accent can be heard in his videos, it becomes reasonable to assume that British English is his preferred dialect, not Australian English, so his article should be written in British English.

Keep in mind that the current policy only mentions the works of single authors, when by extension, it should apply to organizations such as video game companies as well. —C. Raleigh (talk) 06:40, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Formal written British English and formal written Australian English are very similar, though, so an article that's correct in one is likely to be correct in the other as well. ― A. di M.​  16:24, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

True, it is more of a minor example, which is why I listed it last. I just like to have even the smaller details covered, even if the chance of such ambiguity is unlikely. —C. Raleigh (talk) 21:01, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

National Variations In English: An objection to the current regulations

I do not agree with the rules as they currently stand and would like to outline my case with the intention of having the rules re-considered with regard to national variations in English within articles. I've been advised that the 'Talk' page on the articles themselves is not the place to debate this matter because the matter is already one of established conclusion, in so far that it has been resolved on this page 'Manual of Style' - however I am disputing this part of the Manual of Style and therefore request permission to outline my case here. --Thedaveformula (talk) 20:27, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Please do outline your case here.

—Wavelength (talk) 20:42, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

The following is a summary of the case for reviewing the regulations pertaining to national variations of English and their use in Wikipedia articles.

It is the contention here that the objective of Wikipedia should be to accurately represent truth, reality and facts consistently and in a manner that is best understood by the majority of readers, and that the current rules regarding national variation of English undermine this objective.

The approach to spelling does not serve best the education of readers since the decision on which version of English should be used is currently decided what boils down to a 'first come, first served' basis, with minor exceptions. Quotations, proper names, titles, and explicit comparisons on the subject of the variations themselves are rightly exempt from the stated neutral policy and rightly so. In addition, as also stated on the Manual of Style page, articles with strong national ties should be written in the language of that nation's English and this is also uncontested herein.

However, the overall approach to spelling in general is not serving the needs of readers because it is not representing accuracy to the majority of readers. I am not an expert in linguistics nor in Wikipedia, if I may be so immodest I will say that I have a considerable knowledge in the field of Orthopaedic surgery - it is this interest that led me to Wikipedia's article on the subject. I am eager to improve this article and to work on it heavily with the aim of producing a very high standard page. I will not - however - do so whilst the spelling is 'orthopedic'.

The spelling in the article, and undoubtedly there are other examples, is nothing short of American exceptionalism. My intention to change it is not anti-American English, a variation for which I hold great respect, but based on a neutrality that rests on global consideration. The vast majority of readers who may wish to learn about Orthopaedic surgery are not from the United States of America but from countries where the spelling is 'Orthopaedic'. Nothingstanding this fact, it is the case that 'Orthopaedic' is the preferred spelling within many highly regarded American institutions such as the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, the American Orthopaedic Society for Sports Medicine, the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, and Foot & Ankle International.

Now there *are* American organisations of the highest standard who use the spelling 'Orthopedic' and I have no quarrel or right to argue with their spelling in their country or their expertise in the field. That being said, given that 'Orthopaedic' is the spelling used and recognised by many, many more people around the world, I cannot see how it is proper to use American English in this article.

It was contended in the talk page that since the term was first used by a Frenchman, 'Orthopedie', that this justifies the use of 'Orthopedic' as opposed to 'Orthopaedic'. I don't think I need spend much time refuting this argument beyond saying that firstly the term is from a Latin root which includes the 'a' and the nationality of the first person to practice the subject is neither here nor there.

Consider a young person in Australia, the United Kingdom, or any other country whose English is not American - a much greater number of young people I may add. These students may have an interest in medicine and log on to find that the spelling used by the vast majority of the medical world is not the spelling used by Wikipedia - this is at complete odds with the stated 'neutrality' of Wikipedia.

Given Wikipedia's exponentially growing role in educating people across the world and its adherance to high standards I propose that spelling be decided on the version of English that is most widely used across the world. The current rules are not satisfactory in achieving this aim and therefore I submit that they be changed. --Thedaveformula (talk) 22:13, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually more than 60% of English-as-a-first-language speakers, worldwide, live in the United States. So be careful what you wish for. --Trovatore (talk) 22:22, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

If we consider the number of variations of English as a first language, the American spelling of 'orthopaedic' is out-numbered. --Thedaveformula (talk) 22:37, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

You want to count dialects instead of speakers???? By what possible justification? --Trovatore (talk) 22:41, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I want this matter taken seriously by the way, by all. --Thedaveformula (talk) 22:40, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

First and foremost, you are not the first person who has attempted to make this argument. Many have tried and failed, just as surely as this attempt will. (I read your comment at Talk:Orthopedic surgery I'm going to stop editing this article and take this matter a level higher. I'm going to win this case.) Not very likely, especially when you attempt to give us ultimatums like this: I am eager to improve this article and to work on it heavily with the aim of producing a very high standard page. I will not - however - do so whilst the spelling is orthopedic. Not gonna win many friends like that on Wikipedia.

Given that its a flat out fact that the majority of English speakers in the world read and write in American English, there is probably very little basis for so many pages to be written in the less common dialects or spellings. There are far too many pages as it is, with British spelling as the default, so its very unlikely that this MOS will change to accommodate even more.--JOJ ^Hutton 23:02, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

If you take a crayon and colour in all the countries that use the word 'orthopaedic' and then take a different coloured crayon and colour in all the countries using the term 'orthopedic', you will see that the global medical commpany, regardless of how many people there are in the USA, prefer the spelling 'orthopaedic'. And yes I do plan on winning this case because I don't see how a school child in London or Auckland should have to be subjected to the American spelling of the word when they see in their own hospitals signs saying 'Orthopaedic' Do you understand what I am saying? And while I'm at it, regarding the 'you won't make friends here if you don't use American English' comment, what do you expect me to do? Sit down and spend hours researching the subject to make it a fantastic wikipedia page but use the language variation of another country? --Thedaveformula (talk) 23:09, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's what we expect you to do if you're going to edit the page. Them's the rules. No one is forcing you. If you're not willing, we'll just have to muddle by somehow without your expertise. --Trovatore (talk) 23:12, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

(I'll modify that slightly — it's OK if you want to write in your own dialect, and let someone else change it to the one used in the article. If you edit war over those changes, though, there will probably be consequences.) --Trovatore (talk) 23:15, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

'someone else change it' i.e. an American. But I don't work for the USA. Thedaveformula (talk) 23:22, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

It needn't be an American. I'm American, and I sometimes change spellings to British, when appropriate for the article they're in. --Trovatore (talk) 23:28, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Them might be the rules but I'm challenging the rules cause I don't think the rules are fair. If I put in hours of work to bring this website what could possibly be considered for a featured article, I want to write it in the language I use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thedaveformula (talk • contribs) 23:18, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

You are free to challenge, but you aren't going to win. The existing rules are a grand compromise that allow us all to work together, and prevent a costly and useless split of en.wiki into two varieties with only minor differences between them. The argument "I really know a lot about orthop(a)edics, and unless you change the rules for the whole project I'm not going to share it with you" is not going anywhere. --Trovatore (talk) 23:24, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

(EC) But not everyone uses your language and spelling. Wikipedia has ways to settle these type of potential disputes. What you seem to be suggesting is that if Wikipedia isn't going to use the spelling you prefer, on the articles you prefer to write on, then you don't want to write at all. Basically the Wikipedian equivalent of picking up your ball and going home, because you can't have everything your way.--JOJ ^Hutton 23:26, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

And what if another editor highly knowledgeable on the subject prefers American English? Then what? —David Levy 23:53, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

If you take a crayon and colour in all the countries that use the word 'orthopaedic' and then take a different coloured crayon and colour in all the countries using the term 'orthopedic', you will see that the global medical commpany, regardless of how many people there are in the USA, prefer the spelling 'orthopaedic'.

By that logic, British English would be the default variety throughout the site. Similarly, if we were to base the decision on the number of native speakers, American English would be the default variety throughout the site. Do you understand why neither option is viable?

And yes I do plan on winning this case because I don't see how a school child in London or Auckland should have to be subjected to the American spelling of the word when they see in their own hospitals signs saying 'Orthopaedic'

The wording "subjected to" appears to imply that this is a terrible burden.

No matter which English variety someone prefers, he or she will encounter inconsistent spellings and terminology when reading Wikipedia. Most of us (irrespective of location) agree that this isn't a big deal (and is preferable to any alternative).

And while I'm at it, regarding the 'you won't make friends here if you don't use American English' comment, what do you expect me to do?

That isn't what Jojhutton wrote. He correctly pointed out that you won't win many friends via your ultimatum.

Sit down and spend hours researching the subject to make it a fantastic wikipedia page but use the language variation of another country?

That's one option. Countless editors do so on a regular basis.

Your other option is to follow through on your threat by withholding your contributions. If you believe that such an outcome is preferable to contributing to the dissemination of free knowledge in an English variety other than the one that you prefer, that's your prerogative. —David Levy 23:53, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Adapting to unfamiliar spellings is like adapting to unfamiliar driving regulations. See Right- and left-hand traffic.

—Wavelength (talk) 00:01, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Dave (if I may abbreviate), welcome to Wikipedia and its many excitements and chagrins; and welcome to WT:MOS. I think you did the right thing by coming here, and I hope we can work together on the issue that concerns you.

Let me make a small correction: orthopaedic with its related words is best considered to come from two Greek words, not Latin – though of course the form is influenced by passage through Latin or by Latin practice. The first element means "straight, right", as in orthography ("straight writing") and orthodoxy ("straight belief"). The noun from which the second element is formed can be transliterated paideia. It means "rearing of children", and pais (paid-) means "child".

Now, that digression becomes relevant when we turn back to the topic. How to spell a word founded in Greek (with its different alphabet), through learned Latin (with its rather systematic Latin adaptations of Greek spelling)? Different varieties of English make different choices, and certainly these have varied across time. Look at another derivative of pais: "pederasty". Here is the SOED account of its etymology:

[mod.L paederastia f. Gk, f. paiderastēs, f. paid-, pais boy + erastēs lover.]

OED used to cite the word as "pæderasty, ped-" (note the "æ"), but not simply as "pederasty" (the current entry). Current OED gives this historical information:

16 paederastie, 17– paederasty, 18– pederasty.

Now some questions for you: Which of those forms in OED is "right"? When did it become "right"? Who decides?

I am a conservative in many of these matters; and being an Australian I resist thoughtless adoption of American spelling. I am not singlemindedly opposed to American ways with the language, and fully accept American practices when they plainly have rationality or practical convenience on their side. This is not such a case. There are simply two ways to spell the word "orthopaedic", and neither is right in all contexts, for all time. You would write "pederasty", correct? So would almost everyone. No doubt some objected to the reduction to "pederasty"; perhaps some still do. Practicality has settled for us a simplified "orthotised" form. A hyperpædantic purist might insist on "paiderasteia", or insist that we speak and write Greek.

I sympathise – or as my American colleagues and many others would have it, I sympathize. But the advocates of "orthopedic" have as strong a case as you do. And our guidelines want the existing style for the article to stay. I strongly support the "rule of law"* on Wikipedia, with no exception for "mere" style guidelines. So I support retaining the original spelling here (repellent as it may appear); unless a case can be made from existing Wikipedia guidelines or policy for overturning it.

[* No, I am not trying to elevate the status of MOS recommendations. They are guidelines, and as such they ought to be followed by all Wikipedians unless there is a compelling and specific reason to do otherwise.]

Noetica^Tea? 00:08, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

@NoeticaTea Thank you for your message. I would consider it a compromise to have the spelling decided by whomever has last written the article. If I spend a day transforming the limping dog of an article on orthopaedic surgery into a thorough-bred canine, using countless citations and research, maybe even making new articles as a branch to it, can I have it as 'orthopaedic'? You have to remember that in doing this research I am going to be sitting down and reading books that spell it 'orthopaedic'. Now, if an American who is better informed than me on the subject, and there are many in America who are, wishes to better the article then let he or she do so with the spelling 'orthopedic' Thedaveformula (talk) 00:21, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

You want us to adopt a policy of switching from one English variety to another, depending on who last edited the article? Or would this be limited to instances in which an editor is "better informed" than those who edited it previously? (If so, how are we to determine this?)

How would this improve Wikipedia? —David Levy 01:54, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

"If I put in hours of work ... I want to write it the language I use." So do Americans. That's why we have endless arguments like this one. And that's why we have a rule. It's one of the best-known rules on Wikipedia. If it ever changes, it will be after months of debate by hundreds of editors. And it won't depend on what happens to one article. English Wikipedia has 6,937,059 articles. Art LaPella (talk) 00:16, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I think I know where this will ultimately end up, but if everyone with more knowledge about this just humor me for a bit, perhaps we can get at least a little bit of discussion going. Why can't we just split up the wiki.en, and have a separate American and separate British version? I mean really, this isn't the first time we have had these British vs American spelling debate. Or which title of Harry Potter we should use. I know its a small inconvenience to the various readers to have to have to be, how did TheDaveFormula put it, subjected to unfamiliar spellings, but its at least worth discussing. Isn't it? --JOJ ^Hutton 00:19, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I believe that such a fork is prohibited under the Wikimedia Foundation's rules.

Setting aside that issue, why stop with American and British versions? What about Australian English, Canadian English, Caribbean English, Hiberno-English, New Zealand English, South African English, and every other English variety in existence?

The logistical difficulties of even a single split (assuming that it's desirable, with which I disagree) are insurmountable. Imagine the effort required to convert articles from one English variety to another. And then how would the separate versions be maintained? —David Levy 01:54, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

And it terms of 'subjected' to American English, well ... yes. Because I don't want to see British English or Australian English die out, and having American English as the main variation on a universal medical topic such as orthopaedic surgery, on a major, major site like this, is one sure fire way of heading towards American English for the whole world. Not a nuclear disaster, sure, but a real cultural shame. I don't want to see a break up into American v British English and that would never happen anyway and would be futile, I just want to write 'orthopaedic', that's it, and not be ashamed of it or have it corrected by someone in OhioThedaveformula (talk) 00:23, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm British, and I often write articles in "American" (or try to - I'm not perfectly bilingual) because the subject matter is American. It's no big deal. Whatever you write here will be rewritten by other people anyway - to me, spelling of words is one of the least important of issues here. I think you may be overestimating the amount of personal influence you may have over language change. Ghmyrtle (talk) 00:37, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

@Thedaveformula. Orthopaedic is not the only word that may appear to be misspelled by the vast majority of North AmericansWikipedians within this encyclopaedia; consider for example how the artefact article deals with the matter. In actual fact, the OED gives the etymology as French: orthopédique dated 1711 in Robert Dict. Alphabétique et Analogique and the first English spelling as orthopedic in the Lancet on 30 May 1829 --Senra (Talk) 00:43, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

See American and British English spelling differences. (I wish that I had linked to this article in my previous post.)

—Wavelength (talk) 00:56, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

1. This is a single article. If we accept your premise that the use of American English for "universal medical topics" contributes to the demise of British English (and similar varieties), what's the solution? To mandate the latter's use for all such subjects?

And if you're right, won't that contribute to the demise of American English?

2. Has it occurred to you that someone in Ohio might want to write "orthopedic" and not be ashamed of it or have it corrected by someone in the UK?

The current rule is intended to prevent such "corrections" from occurring in any direction. —David Levy 01:54, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

1. There is some precedent for things like this. Isn't "aluminium" always used in articles in the Chemistry Wikiproject?

2. But remember that Wikipedia is a general-readership publication. The articles are not written for orthopedic/orthopaedic professionals; they're written for ordinary readers. Please tell me how requiring the spelling "orthopaedic" would help these readers? Isn't the truth of the matter, as you put it, that this word has two accepted spellings? Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:40, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

As to your point (1), I think that's because aluminium is (unfortuntely, imho) the official IUPAC spelling, and (again unfortunately) Wikipedia tends to give a lot of weight to the pronouncements of these meddlesome standards bodies. --Trovatore (talk) 02:44, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

The solution is that I write a very well researched article on 'orthopaedic surgery' and if someone from Ohio has a better one then he or she can edit it and label it 'orthopedic surgery'. Thedaveformula (talk) 02:53, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

And by the way, I'm talking about writing a really good page. A very in-depth page on orthopaedic surgery with excellent citations, biograpy of its early proponents, its micro-disciplines, case studies, and all I want, is to call it 'Orthopaedic surgery' Thedaveformula (talk) 02:59, 24 November 2011 (UTC)