Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 111

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Manual of Style. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 105

←

Archive 109

→

Punctuation: Quotation marks: Inside or outside

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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)

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.

American style:
“At all events, the next best thing to being witty one’s self, is to be able to quote another’s wit.”
Ralph Waldo Emerson once said that “a great man quotes bravely,” and I have no cause to disagree.

British style:
“At all events, the next best thing to being witty one’s self, is to be able to quote another’s wit.”
Ralph Waldo Emerson once said that “a great man quotes bravely”, and I have no cause to disagree.

“Logical” style:
“At all events, the next best thing to being witty one’s self, is to be able to quote another’s wit.”.
Ralph Waldo Emerson once said that “a great man quotes bravely”, and I have no cause to disagree.

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)

I vote for the American style. HowardMorland (talk) 13:34, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Would you care to explain why, too? (keep in mind that this is not really a vote. --LjL (talk) 13:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

LjL is correct. Wikipedia works by consensus, not vote results, as per WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. Ideally, decisions are made by weight of reasoning rather than by the number of supporters on each side. Please tell us yours, HowardMorland. (This may take some courage on your part, given how heated these discussions can get. Heh!) Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

I can quote various style guides if you wish, but in general in British English one puts the stop where it belongs, so, if it is part of the quote it goes in the quote; if not, it goes outside. Double punctuation is generally frowned on as ugly and unnecessary.

In the Quick Brown Fox example, there is no need for the stop – you can accurately quote the man up to, but not including, the stop that he didn't in any case say (since stops are only written, not said), and only an extreme pedant would say you were quoting out of context.

Very occasionally one does have a genuine problem with double puntuation. Either one lives with it, or uses an avoidance technique such as rewording the sentence (not the quote itself of course).

I don't see how "this is also an advantage of the American system, as it does away with such nuances". It does seem important, especially with questions and exclamations, to include them in the right places. Anyway that serves as a good example: I knocked the cap off and left the finishing stop outside, and yet I doubt anyone would claim that I was misquoting.

(Someone is now bound to claim I am misquoting.)

Best wishes SimonTrew (talk) 07:02, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

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)

The most recent edit on this matter particularly confuses me. I don't think either American or British English encourages the use of punctuation before a quotation that is used as part of a sentence like this. I move for reverting this. Dcoetzee 08:06, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

That was just a mistake, and it was fixed. Finell (Talk) 18:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

TL;DR. Voting is evil, my opinion is that the current system should remain the Wikipedia standard and the dispute box should be removed. Discussions as to differences in the various usages in various countries belong in mainspace articles which can be linked for reference. Hope that helps resolve this, . dave souza, talk 23:26, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

New proposal

I would like to propose a change. We should remove the text, "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." 1. It's unsourced. 2. It claims that other styles can create misquotation and introduce errors, which is not exactly true. If we're not going to explain the matter here, then we should keep the "logical quotation" wikilink and put the explanation in a place where information on the pros and cons of this policy can be provided in full detail. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't need to be sourced. Removing it would promote misunderstanding, and there is no reason to spend further space in the MOS belaboring a point that, so far as I can see, most people understand perfectly well — one can always fail to understand what it says if one assumes that it doesn't mean what it says, but that can't be remedied by modifying the MOS. Its less-prone-ness claims (which you have somewhat misrepresented, as "prone to" is not interchangeable with "creates") are exactly true. --Pi zero (talk) 14:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

How about "It is the consensus among most Wikipedia editors that this method is in keeping with the principle of minimal change and less prone to misquotation, ambiguity, and the introduction of errors in subsequent editing"? This way the statement is less likely to be mistaken for a statement of fact and yet not easily dismissed as "just an opinion." Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:36, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

This has been argued and reargued ad nauseam. The statement explains the rationale of this MOS for this guideline for Wikipedia only; that is all that this MOS is about. The consensus, after full discussion, is to leave this guideline as is. Please stop with the proposals to water it down because you disagree with the consensus. Finell (Talk) 18:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Finell, this would not water down Wikipedia's instructions. The page would still say, "Do this here." It wouldn't even say, "Do this here but." Take a look at things on their merits. If this is not the place to explain Wikipedia's position, then this is not the place to explain Wikipedia's position. The text as it is asserts that Wikipedia's current style is superior to other styles, but it is not. Even if it were, that is an opinion, not a fact, and should be stated as such. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:54, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Consensus can change. It almost seems like you're attempting to discourage discussion of this rule by telling people there there is not a snowball's chance in hell for the consensus to change. That clearly isn't true, so let's keep freely discussing. --LjL (talk) 21:54, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm pro-"logical" quotes, and I don't see a problem with Darkfrog's second proposal, the one that starts "It is the consensus among ...". It doesn't seem to me to be significantly watered down, but it's less provocative. --Trovatore (talk) 22:32, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The main problem is that the second proposal does, de facto, express profound lack of confidence in the consensus. I really see no other way to interpret an explicit statement that "this is just a matter of consensus" in the middle of a document that is already explicitly an enumeration of consensus judgments.

(There is also something very peculiar going on with what the proposal does to the allusion to the principle of minimal change, which is, after all, essentially the definition of logical quotation...)

However, all that said, the existing phrasing does somehow manage to make it sound as if there were no possible way anyone could possibly fail to agree with the prone-ness part of the reasoning — as if anyone who disagrees with the consensus must have decided that they have nothing against misquotation, ambiguity, and introduction of errors in subsequent editing.

How about simply inserting into the existing phrasing, between the words "is less", the word "deemed", so that the sentence reads

It is used by Wikipedia both because of the principle of minimal change, and also because the method is deemed less prone to misquotation, ambiguity, and the introduction of errors in subsequent editing.

--Pi zero (talk) 03:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

a side issue, but Darkfrog24's proposed "consensus among most editors" is redundant - what you want is either "the consensus among editors is" or "most editors agree".

meanwhile, i've been following this discussion for a while, and although i still see no compelling reason to change the original wording, i could go along with Pi zero's proposal if it satisfies others. one bit of finetuning, though: that "also" in the second clause is extraneous (in the current wording as well); it should say: "It is used by Wikipedia both because of the principle of minimal change, and ~~also~~ because the method is deemed less prone to misquotation, ambiguity and the introduction of errors in subsequent editing."

The problem with Pi's suggestion is that the wording still claims that Wikipedia's current quotation style is less prone to error than the other two styles and it is not. It states a belief as if it were fact. The use of the word "deemed" isn't bad, but we would need to say by whom it was so deemed. "Consensus among Wikipedia editors" or "deemed by Wikipedia" solves these problems. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

There is no problem to solve. The sentence is plainly talking about the motives of the Wikipedians who have reached the consensus. Additional words would not clarify it, they would muddy the matter, serving to undermine the consensus. (I don't imagine that you're deliberately trying to sneak in a back-door repudiation of the consensus, but your sincere disagreement seems to be blinding you to the reality that that's what these glaringly out-of-place extra words would be doing.) --Pi zero (talk) 02:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Darkfrog, you're nothing if not tenacious, I've got to hand it to you. However, I concur with the position that your proposition would water down the style guide's advice. It's implied that what's in the style guide is the current consensus—people aren't going to follow a link to go read volumes of inane discussion about the style. You don't need to state that what's there is the current consensus! Do I put on my user page "It is the consensus among most Wikipedia editors that Laser brain is an administrator"? No, obviously. It's known that what happens here is by consensus. I'm not really even sure what you're trying to accomplish any more, other than making sure people are aware that other opinions exist about logical quotation than what is stated in the style guide. Don't you think that's blindingly obvious? --Laser brain (talk) 18:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

That you are an administrator, LB, is a fact, not a belief. Even if it weren't, the tone and positioning of your user page would make it clear that it was voicing your own opinions and assessments. And no, I don't think it's obvious. Just look at MChavez's opening comments from May. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, let me frame my question differently. When a user arrives here looking for advice on style, for whatever reason, let's say they disagree with what's written, and they see a little note that there are other people who don't agree. What is your intent for them? That they now have an excuse to ignore the style guide? To what end? --Laser brain (talk) 20:15, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Quite the contrary. Phrasing the MoS in this way would 1. Make it clear that Wikipedia has chosen its own standard for use on Wikipedia, in the sense of, "With regard to other styles, do what you like, but don't do it here." 2. Make it clear that this third standard was not chosen in error (When MChavez showed up in May, he demonstrated that this is a real problem). 3. Make it clear that the virtues of this standard are neither a matter of proven fact nor a matter of mere opinion but the result of a reasonable consensus among Wikipedia editors, the same principle that applies to other Wikipedia articles. 4. Stop spreading misinformation about American and British standard styles. These first three things would increase fidelity to the MoS, not decrease it. The fourth is just responsible behavior on our part. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

All right, I agree with you in principle. I suspect some of the language in the MoS has been added in an attempt to codify it with some rationale other than "because consensus dictates"; case in point, the text you want to remove. Some time in the past, someone had the idea that we need to explain on the page why we are making our recommendations. --Laser brain (talk) 20:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, adding the word "deemed" as I've proposed would do all of those things (whereas the proposal before that, with the unprecedented explicit word "consensus" in it, would not do (2) or (3), and would trash the consensus to boot). --Pi zero (talk) 02:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

No, the word "deemed" alone would be insufficient to at the very least (2), (3) and (4) because it alone does not explain "by whom." "Deemed by Wikipedia" might do.

It is no insult to call a Wikipedia consensus a Wikipedia consensus. It does not mean that it's "only an opinion"; it means that it is a matter reached by discussion among an assumed majority of the Wikipedia editors involved, in accordance with Wikipedia's values and policies. However, it does mean that it is not necessarily a fact, which is the problem with the current wording. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Great Wikipedia Dramaout of 2009

How about we make a crossover between the two proposed systems:

The troll said “The quick brown fox shouldn't have jumped over the lazy dog”.

Just so that everyone could be happy ... stpasha » talk » 18:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Huh? --A. di M. – 2009 Great Wikipedia Dramaout 20:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it's a joke. I liked it, it made me smile. But I wouldn't seriously support it. --LjL (talk) 20:01, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

No, Stpasha was trying to tell us about the Dramaout! 2009 Great Wikipedia Dramaout It starts tomorrow. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:05, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

But now that I notice it, the idea of putting periods underneath the quotation marks, while arguably impractical, does have some merit. We'd probably have to wait for the next generation of typographical systems, though (or for an apocalyptic event to blast us all back to the pen-and-paper age). Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:08, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah! I hadn't noticed it... (Apparently my browser ignores negative margins.) Well, I often do something like that in casual handwriting, FWIW. (I hope this post doesn't count as drama, despite the page it's on. Anyway, this will be my only edit on this page during the Dramaout.) --A. di M. – 2009 Great Wikipedia Dramaout 09:46, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Should Wikipedia also start using inches and feet simply because most English-speaking persons (do they?) prefer them over SI units? I say no. dmyersturnbull ⇒ talk 05:48, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely not, Dmyersturnbull, but 1. metric is an international system supported by almost the entire scientific community, while "logical quotation" is not and 2. Wikipedia supports the use of non-metric units where appropriate. Wikipedia should not put U.S. units in all articles but neither should Wikipedia adopt British spelling (or in this case, a spelling system designed for computer programming) for all articles. My take is that applying ENGVAR, replacing Wikipedia's current system with the appropriate British or American standards, would be best.Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:23, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Logical quotation is best because it preserves the original text. The "American" habit of inserting punctuation where there was none originally, changes the quote to something that was not written in the original. Say for example, the quote is "I am in favour of executions, but I do have some reservations." Quoting that as "I am in favour of executions." indicates that that was all that was said, but quoting that as "I am in favour of executions" warns us to be on our guard that that was not the whole sentence. DrKiernan (talk) 17:24, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

The problem with that quote is not the style of punctuation used but the fact that it becomes misleading if the second half is sliced off. This is just as possible under Wikipedia's current system. If I saw the text "At the debate, Mr. Smith said 'I am in favour of executions' to Ms. Jones" on Wikipedia, I would think it right and proper to rephrase it because of its content, even if the punctuation was perfect.

In the American system, it is understood that the period is there because it ends the sentence, not necessarily because it was part of the original material. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

The point is, though, that using the American system we don't know whether the full stop or comma belongs to the quote or not. Therefore if this system is allowed, less information is conveyed. Kiernan's example may have been extreme but it does demonstrate the increased potential for misquoting, whether deliberate or not, if we use American quotation. JIMp_talk·cont 21:09, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

But that has been a non-issue for almost a hundred and fifty years. In practice, the American system is not more prone to misquotation than any other system. It is understood that the period or comma is part of the quotation process. If someone wants to know how the original was punctuated, then he or she must look at the original, and that is just as true of Wikipedia's current system as it is of American and British standards. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:01, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Practice for almost a hundred and fifty years was under non-wiki conditions.

Darkfrog, if you define "misquotation" to exclude being wrong about what if any final punctuation occurs in the original, then (a) you've got a rather strange notion of "misquotation", and (b) you aren't addressing the choice of style. If "misquotation" includes getting the final punctuation wrong, then your statement about prone-ness of the American system is patently false.

Absolute certainty about the original only comes from consulting the original, and the circumstances of Wikipedia make for a much larger discrepancy (than has existed for most of the past hundred and fifty years) between the ease of editing and the difficulty of consulting the original source — all of which makes it especially important to minimize information degradation during ongoing evolution of Wikipedia articles. --Pi zero (talk) 14:02, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

"But that has been a non-issue for almost a hundred and fifty years." Has it? In a hundred and fifty years this odd practice has never caused anyone any trouble? Can we verify that? If I'm free to add my own punctuation within the inverted commas, it's easier for me to misquote. Using this system, to which you cling to so dearly, so inexplicably, in spite of its flaws, which you would never admit, involves a loss of information. If you've got a loss of information, you've got an increase chance of misquotation. You note yourself that "If someone wants to know how the original was punctuated, then he or she must look at the original". Let's suppose the original were just a click away, it's still easier not to have to go clicking down originals. In general, of course, it's a lot more than a click. You're telling us that in one hundred and fifty years nobody has ever needed to go hunting down an original source just to find out whether a punctuation mark really belonged there or was just shoved there by a practice which has long outlived its once practical usefulness. JIMp_talk·cont 15:00, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I can't believe this is still going on and on, Darkfrog. Jimp expresses very clearly why WP's practice, indeed, is utterly necessary to treat our sources with respect. It's deeply embedded in WP's ethics. Tony (talk) 15:43, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Can we verify that? Well I can't go through every last word written in American English, but you don't seem to be asking me to, so here's this:

"In defense of nearly a century and a half of the American style, however, it may be said that it seems to have been working fairly well and has not resulted in serious miscommunication." —Chicago Manual of Style Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:41, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

All I'm saying is that, at least here on WP, we can say better than "seems to have been working fairly well" (some euphemism for "not too badly") and strive for zero miscommunication. JIMp_talk·cont 20:25, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Except that we are not any less likely to get zero miscommunication using American and British standards than we are with technical punctuation and, in addition to accuracy, we will also get a more encyclopedic, consistent and professional tone. The fact that almost every branch of academia written in American English, including history (read: obsessed with accuracy), uses American English punctuation supports the idea that it does not detract from accuracy. Replacing standard English with technical English is a solution in search of a problem. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:50, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

The fact that we can create a wonderfully substantial list of professional academics who have laboured under this absurd system provides far less support for the idea that it does not detract from accuracy than the simple observation that wherever we have a system in place which routinely destroys information we are more likely to get miscommunication provides support for the idea that it does not. JIMp_talk·cont

PS "a solution in search of a problem" ... American punctuation is the solution to a long forgotten problem. JIMp_talk·cont 16:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Darkfrog, enough already! There is nothing new for anyone to say about this. We all know about the other guidelines and rationales and usages elsewhere. It is clear that there is no consensus for any of your proposed changes to this section of the MOS. You don't have to agree, but there is no rational reason for you to keep arguing about the same thing, over, over, over, over, over, over, over, over, over, over, over, over, over, over, over, over, over, over, over, over, and over. Finell (Talk) 23:27, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Finell, both Dmyersturnbull and DrK brought up new points this past week. Though I don't agree with the conclusions they drew from their metaphors, I still considered them interesting enough to merit a response. If you feel that you have nothing new to say, then you are within your rights to pass on the conversation. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:21, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Having read all of this conversation, but only knowing about half a dozen languages and some of them not very well, having a failry astutue idea of the British/US split both in the past and the present, and times in between, having lived in the US and the UK and Canada, and seen the differences betwen all of them and having to write and speak in all of them, having sometimes difficulty in sub editing articles to decide whether they are British English or US English and hoping that someone else will correct me if I am wrong, but at least trying to prove consistency, having read several style guides in both British and American English (which is what WP calls them even if others would say e.g. International and North American English, a name is just a name), with all these things I declare this conversation incredbly boring pointless and WP:SNOWBALL.

SimonTrew (talk) 23:56, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

(and I still put the em dash next to the word and the space after, but not on WP, which says otherwise. I (try to) follow its style when I am on WP, and follow my style when I am not. What do you do? SimonTrew (talk) 23

56, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

So do I. (To me, spaced em dashes appear to be more common in Europe and unspaced ones in America — but I have no source for that; the European Union's style guide for translators tells to space them, but with the rationale "[t]o avoid errors if your dashes subsequently turn into hyphens as a result of document conversion".) WP allows to use spaced en dashes as em dashes, though, so I use that when possible. --A. di M. 10:27, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Move to close

This discussion has been lingering on for two months now, with no consensus for adding additional explanations and rhetoric about why the WP style is what it is. The damned page is still locked, preventing any reasonable progress on the rest of the MoS. I propose that the dispute tag be removed, and the text of WP:LQ remain in its original state. Any changes that attempt to add rhetoric about American vs. British systems, or additional rhetoric rationalizing the current style, should be considered to be against consensus. Then, we can mercifully have the page unlocked and get back to work. --Andy Walsh (talk) 18:01, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

As an uninvolved observer of the discussion's progress, I second this motion. Sswonk (talk) 18:06, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed that the consensus for either adding an explanation of Wikipedia's policy or for removing the misleading wording has not been reached. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I can't tell if that means you agree with the motion or not. --Andy Walsh (talk) 19:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I feel that, considering that there is no consensus for further changes, the text should remain in its current state. No consensus was reached for 1. adding more explanation or 2. removing the misleading text, but 3. changing the indicative to the imperative was properly proposed and implemented, so it should remain.

As for the dispute tag, does Wikipedia have anything along the lines of "Caution: Dangerous waters! Consider discussing even small changes to this section before editing"? This is what I did with the change of the indicative to the imperative: WP's rules do not require that small changes be discussed ahead of time, and it looked like the sort of thing that no one would mind, but considering how contentious this part of the MoS is, I figured it might be a good idea to do it anyway. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:23, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The subject should be closed, with the result that there is no consensus to adopt any of the changes proposed in this discussion topic (that is, under the heading "Punctuation: Quotation marks: Inside or outside") or its immediate predecessors in the archives of this Talk page. The dispute tag should be removed from this section of the MoS. There should not be any special legend for this section of the MoS. Darkfrog: Please stop trying to confuse the matter with equivocation (like your first response to the motion to close) or by trying to single out this guideline, which you don't like, with a new tag or legend of your invention. Finell (Talk) 00:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Easy, Finell. You seem to be projecting onto me motives that I do not have. It is hardly equivocation to say, "I agree that there is no consensus for point one or for point two." In addition, I'm not trying to invent a new tag; I am asking if such a tag already exists. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

It is the wish of the current participants in this discussion that the above sections be archived. If you wish to discuss Wikipedia's policy on quotation marks or the text of the MoS with regard to this policy, then please start a new section, even if you are responding to something said in this thread. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Revisting "don't wikilink inside quotations"

Style and practice issues

Our commandment to never wikilink terms/names/whatever within directly-quoted material is problematic. It is often not practical without excessive redundancy (i.e. the terms that need linking have to be repeated somewhere outside the quotation). See for example first sentence of Leslie Balfour-Melville for an in-quote link that could only be handled this way, without losing the quotation entirely, or providing a reference to an obscure biographical name without any link to it, a disservice to our readers. Furthermore, it is clear to me that this particular guideline point does not actually have WP-wide consensus, as it is extremely frequently ignored. I think it bears serious re-examination. I have long "enforced" the "rule", often gritting my teeth in the process, but will no longer do so until this is resolved. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:09, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this. While we do need to be careful not to use wikilinks in such a way that they attribute unintended meaning to the speaker, there are cases, especially with regards to the wikilinking of people's names, where such misattribution is not possible. Steve Smith (talk) 22:13, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree too. The alternative is to write explanatory sentences to host the links, but that's often just redundant verbiage. What needs to be especially avoided are piped links that lead to different terms than used in the quotation. The linking should be limited to those concepts or names that are necessary to understand the quotation. Will Beback talk 22:20, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I would generally agree with all of that, other than I'd say "radically different" not just "different"; the link target and linked content may not match perfectly for grammar reasons alone, the term linked from may be obsolete, and/or the term linked from may be entirely and correctly subsumed at a good article that happens to be at another topic. The issue to me would be misleading links that will confuse readers. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:46, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

The Leslie Balfour-Melville example is a bad one, since the cited source does not contain the quote in question. For now I removed the quote from that article. Perhaps a better example could be supplied? Eubulides (talk) 22:22, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Whatever. Just use previous version. The point isn't whether or not that particular article is properly sourced, it's the form of the content. We don't need a new example in order to discuss what everyone here appears to understand already, given that we're discussing the issue at hand, not Leslie Balfour-Mellville. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:43, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

All the same, I'd feel better seeing a properly-sourced example in a high-quality article. A slapdash example in a poorly-sourced page provides little justification for overturning a long-established style rule. Eubulides (talk) 22:46, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

How about the blockquote in Charles Stewart (Canadian politician)#Defeat and legacy? There's a list of names in that quote and, while several of them would be familiar to the reader once he/she hit that section, others are not elsewhere mentioned in the article. While wikilinks are certainly not essential to understanding the quote (and for that reason no additional context is provided in the prose), they would provide some benefit at no cost whatever. Steve Smith (talk) 23:01, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks; wikilinks would be useful in that example. As I understand it, some editors oppose wikilinks in quotations because it's not clear whether the wikilinks were something we added, or were present in the original. There's a similar problem when an article italicizes part of a quotation, and this is typically handled by adding a parenthetical comment "(italics added)" after the quote; or by adding "(italics in original)" if that is needed to avoid confusion. How about if we suggest a similar solution here: that is, a quote with wikilinks should be followed by a parenthetical comment "(wikilinks added)" or "(wikilinks in original)" depending on whether we added the wikilinks? This approach addresses concerns about altering text by introducing wikilinks, and also lets an article put wikilinks in quotes to avoid a lot of awkward wording. Eubulides (talk) 23:09, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed with McCandlish and Eubulides. - Dank (push to talk) 01:37, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

(I shall be very interested to see a quote with wikilinks in the original. ;D) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 04:07, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Just look (via what links here) for abuse of {{Cquote}} in articlespace, and you'll find oodles of them. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 19:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Possible technical concerns

I also find this rule to make things more difficult and hope there's a way to allow them but (1) consider those readers whose links appear underlined; as with added italics or bold-face, we probably need to add "links added" after wikilinked quotations, but (2) rather more importantly, and much more problematic, I think I've read that the objection is something more serious technically: that the brackets or other encoding interferes with searching and checking quotations, say if you're searching for the cited passage on the Internet or on a particular web-page. There are probably also occasions where it could interfere with printing (inline citations to external sites which don't drop down to refs print out fully on my own printer) or with transferring articles to other sites or media. —— Shakescene (talk) 23:37, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Objection (1) makes sense, as I mentioned in my previous comment. Objection (2) makes sense for external links: so, how about if we continue to prohibit the insertion of external links within quotes? That's a reasonable restriction. However, I don't see how objection (2) applies to internal links ("wikilinks"): wikilinks don't introduce square brackets or other funky markup, any more than italics or bold do, so wikilinks shouldn't run afoul of objection (2). Eubulides (talk) 23:47, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand the technical issues, but my impression is that even Wiki-markup for italics and boldface might possibly interfere with matching quotations on the Web. If that's true and the emphasis was in the original, there's probably not much we can do (except perhaps recommend HTML tags over Wiki markup, since the former is more likely to be used on other sites). But if it's true, then it would also be an argument against (rather than for) introducing extraneous Wiki-markup—either for Wikilinks or for added emphasis—into quotations. (Of course, I hope there are no technical objections, and that we can just discuss wikilinks on stylistic issues, where I can see the arguments both ways.) —— Shakescene (talk) 00:07, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:LINK says "Items within quotations should not generally be linked; instead, consider placing the relevant links in the surrounding text or in the "See also" section of the article." This seems to provide enough lattitude already ("not generally"). I don't want to actively encourage people to run around inserting links within quotations; but I, too, have noticed links within quotations that would be cumbersome to insert otherwise. Tony (talk) 03:00, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I concur with SmC and Steve. We do not need a rule forbidding Wikilinks within quoted material. It is reasonably obvious that Wikilinks are part of Wikipedia's process.

Think of it this way: When I quote something, whether I'm writing a paper or a Wikipedia article, I only quote the text. I never include the original article's external links, yet none of my readers would be surprised to find one upon perusing the source.

Tony makes a good point that the MoS, when interpreted literally, seems to already permit occasional in-quote Wikilinks, but if it is being interpreted as a flat ban on in-quote Wikilinks, then perhaps the wording should be changed to make it clear that it is not. How about, "Where reasonably practical, keep Wikilinks outside of directly quoted material." Maybe we need to explicitly say, "In-quote Wikilinks are permissible in [such cases]," or "Only place a Wikilink inside a direct quote when doing otherwise would make the article too cumbersome."

In those rare cases in which confusion would occur, we can add notes for (Wikilinks added) or (external links in original).

As for the technical concerns, that would only apply to straight copy-pasting of the text in question into a search bar. Even if someone tries that once, they can just fix it on the second try. Am I understanding this properly? Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, even Wikipedia's search does best-effort these days: Google strips markup as a matter of course. I'm all for not unnecessarily making it more difficult to search our articles using existing technologies, but I'm pretty sure existing technologies are already good enough that this isn't a real issue. FWIW I'd very much like to avoid editorial self-refs like "links added" if possible. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:59, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

We should certainly never write "(Wikilinks added)" as "Wikilinks" is Wikipedia jargon. If we're to write anything, it should be "(Hyperlinks added)". Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 13:56, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent) Rather than guessing, it would probably make sense to set up a test page in user sandbox, wait a week for it to be found and indexed by spiders, and then do tests on it. I'm very, very skeptical that having links in a string of text is going to bollix search results, or Google (et al.) would be pretty much useless tools. The other technical concerns sound bogus to me as well, like issues that could possibly have been around, for one platform/browser/search engine/whatever, 8 years ago, but extremely unlikely to be extant problems. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 19:28, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom election reminder: voting closes 14 December

Dear colleagues

This is a reminder that voting is open until 23:59 UTC next Monday 14 December to elect new members of the Arbitration Committee. It is an opportunity for all editors with at least 150 mainspace edits on or before 1 November 2009 to shape the composition of the peak judicial body on the English Wikipedia.

On behalf of the election coordinators. Tony (talk) 09:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

What does this have to do with the Manual of Style, exactly? :-) --___A. di M. 16:18, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

All (Arbs) go in parentheses? —Aladdin Sane (talk) 03:05, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Commas and periods inside or outside quotation marks

Resolved

– Proposal: Failed to gain consensus. Discussion: Rehash. This issue is dredged out of the archives every few months by a lone editor unfamiliar with the previous discussion. Ignorance of or refusal to accept consensus does not mean consensus has not been reached. If you think it has changed, use WP:RFC, not another duplicate discussion thread. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 18:56, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

This section from the Manual of Style:

Inside or outside

On Wikipedia, place all punctuation marks inside the quotation marks if they are part of the quoted material and outside if they are not. This practice is referred to as logical quotation. 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.

This point conflicts with virtually all American manuals of style: Turabian, MLA, APA, Associated Press, Chicago, etc. They all agree that commas and periods always go inside the quotes. No need for interpretation or logical judgment or analysis or anything else. Using the nonstandard style invites the kind of misquotation, ambiguity, and errors we are trying to avoid, because that is not the style that was used in the original.

JPFay (talk) 22:30, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

This American rule is surprising when you first learn about it, and like all counter-intuitive rules creates a certain affection once you got used to it. It was originally introduced for a specific technical reason that is explained at Quotation mark#punctutation. In the 21st century this reason no longer applies. This rule, virtually unknown outside the English-speaking world, isn't even universally followed there. It is logical for a modern project such as Wikipedia to anticipate trends when trying to create some consistency on top of the underlying situation of various variants of English. In this case it's fairly obvious that in a hundred years (probably much earlier) our standard will be followed by all but the most conservative publications even in the US. Hans Adler 15:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Hans, the spellings of most words got the way they are because of things that no longer apply. Does that mean we should rip them apart and put them back together again every few years? No. The rule is there now and it should not be thrown away just because some people don't like it. Also, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We're writing for a 2009 audience, not a 2109 one. Having American articles written in an American standard would be just as good for our readers as having New Zealand articles written to a New Zealand standard. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:02, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Such fine points of punctuation are much more volatile than spelling differences, and looking into a respectable and well maintained crystal ball is perfectly good as a basis for strategic decisions about the MoS. Down with troglography! Hans Adler 07:01, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

The reason why "money" and "honey" are spelt this way — namely, that the sequence "unn" has too many consecutive vertical stroke to be readable with blackletter typefaces — has been outdated for muuuuch longer that the reason why commas are put inside in US English. Indeed, words more recent than that (but still older than anyone around here) are spelt as "sunny", "funny", "bunny". This is no valid argument for starting spelling "munny" or "hunny". --___A. di M. 13:38, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Not commenting on this fully, but this issue has been hashed out time and time again. JPFay, I invite you to go through the archives (I assure you, most or all of your points have been raised at one time or another) before restarting the discussion again so that we don't end up in this endless cycle. Also, this is the English Wikipedia, not the American Wikipedia; we don't have to do everything the US way. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:02, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

After reading it, I'm fine with how it is now. WP MOS asserts a style I can appreciate, but did not learn in school. It's OK with me to learn a new way. I especially appreciate the WP:ENGVAR argument made in the case of how WP MOS is written now (logical quoting sounds like a nice non-nationalistic compromise to me); this isn't American Wikipedia, as has been said and agreed. When I tally the numbers, I find that speakers (writers) of American English are actually in the minority on this network that comprises an estimated 1.6 billion as of June 2009. Anyhow, my English instructors and programming instructors always did disagree as to whether the quotes go inside or outside...so I appreciate MOS's guidance as to "how it's done here". —Aladdin Sane (talk) 03:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Oppose change: Some American editors (I am one) question this guideline because it is not the one that they learned. However, the style that Wikipedia has chosen makes sense for Wikipedia, and there is broad consensus to retain it. I conform my placement of punctuation marks to the style of the publication or audience for whom I am writing. I use Wikipedia's guideline for Wikipedia, and use the style that JPFay refers to in most of my other American writing. Please note that while that style is prevalent in American writing, it is not universal in the U.S. (some U.S. publications, especially technical journals, use the logical quotation system), and the style guideline that Wikipedia follows is common in other parts of the English-speaking world. English Wikipedia is not written exclusive for the American audience. —Finell 04:28, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Support change to the MoS to permit American punctuation in accordance with ENGVAR. This issue keeps coming up every couple of months for a reason: Banning correct American punctuation is an insult to American Wikipedians. We also have no logical reason to do it. The idea that American punctuation causes technical problems in encyclopedic writing is a myth. None of the opponents of American punctuation have ever been able to present a real case or clear example of a situation in which American punctuation causes confusion that other forms of punctuation do not. We should permit both American and British punctuation just as we permit the serial comma and color spelled with a U and other matters that do not interfere with Wikipedia's message.

The only American publications that use the British/"logical" style are the ACS and computer programming journals, largely because they deal with data strings. Every other academic and professional journal uses American punctuation. This might not be the American Wikipedia, but it's not the computer programmers' Wikipedia either (at least not any more). So-called logical punctuation is not an advantage in English-language encyclopedia writing, only in writing for computer programming. Wikipedia articles are much more similar to the types of articles in most academic journals and magazines than they are to computer programming articles. We don't quote data strings in our articles—and American punctuation makes exceptions for these anyway—we quote song titles and words-as-words and things that people have said. American punctuation does all of these justice perfectly. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:29, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

This sounds as if you are still entertaining the misconception that MoS recommends double punctuation, which only occurs in the contexts you mention. What MoS actually recommends is to not mislead: by not inserting our own punctuation into the quoted text; not even at the end. Hans Adler 15:08, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

How is writing "Bruce Springstein, nicknamed 'The Boss,' sang 'Born in the U.S.A.' " misleading? No reasonable person would think that the comma is part of the nickname or song title. That's why the system has worked for a hundred and fifty years. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:40, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Oppose any change to the MoS that would permit right-thinking Wikipedians to follow what is without any doubt the only correct and logical style. Let's continue to trample on the rights of Americans not to be offended by the deliberate abuse of their language. Let's continue to endanger "the easily damaged smallest pieces of type for the comma and period" by recklessly not putting them "behind the more robust quotation marks" (quoted from Quotation mark#punctutation, which explains how illogical quotation became the standard in some parts of the world)! Hans Adler 15:09, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

it's been pointed out over and over that a] so-called logical punctuation is not an ENGVAR issue, and b] Wikipedia's MoS doesn't have to follow other styleguides; most other styleguides are not designed for situations that resemble Wikipedia. i'm an American who is not a computer programmer, and i consider so-called logical punctuation a brilliant improvement on "national" punctuation styles. Sssoul (talk) 15:27, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

What that means, Sssoul, is that you don't like American punctuation, not that the programmers' style is inherently superior. We do not have the right to disregard parts of the language just because we don't like them or think that we can do better. American spelling is more intuitive and logical than British spelling, but that doesn't mean that we insult and exclude the British by throwing their system away. The word "theatre" isn't pronounced "thee-treh," but it's not as if people get confused by "theatre." However, people have been arguing that American punctuation is confusing and misleading and that is just not true. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:37, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

smile: and what that means, Darkfrog, is that you don't like so-called logical punctuation. i'm sure it's okay with you that others also express their views, right? Sssoul (talk) 16:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't happen to like it. However, you don't see me proposing that we ban it, only that we do not force people to use it where it is incorrect. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:00, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

If it wasn't so confusing your teachers wouldn't have had to spend so much time teaching it to you. If your teachers hadn't spent so much time on this rule, you wouldn't be so attached to it now. Of course it is confusing that commas and periods get one treatment, and semicolons, question marks and exclamation marks get the other. Of course it is misleading to those not used to the American rule to see a comma or period within the quotation marks if it isn't actually quoted. Especially in short articles where it isn't even clear which variant of English they are following. Hans Adler 15:46, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the teaching process was quite straightforward. "Place periods and commas inside the quotation marks all the time" covered it and we moved on to the next part of the lesson. It's the British system that takes time to teach, but I understand the Brits consider it to be worth it.

Hans, you're citing problems that don't exist or that already have solutions. On short articles with no clear British or American preference, the first contributor's style should stand, as always. Half the English-speaking world is used to the American rule. We're not going to please everyone no matter which way we go. ENGVAR gives everyone equal respect and equal treatment. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:53, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

ENGVAR makes it very clear that it is about spelling and grammar. It does not, and should not, extend to punctuation. Most editors never notice the subtleties that we are discussing here and have no idea what the quotation style for their own variant of English is supposed to be. Hans Adler 16:09, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

That's like saying that most editors don't know what a proper source is or that most editors don't know how to write well. 1. Yes, many of them do. 2. The ones who don't will be corrected by Wikipedia's editing process. We have always dealt with problems like that. There is no reason why ENGVAR couldn't or shouldn't extend to this point. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:12, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposed new text

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a proposed change to this guideline. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: No consensus for change; proposal snowballed rapidly, and there is no sign of this changing after about 3 weeks.. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 18:56, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I propose the following new text:

On Wikipedia, place all exclamation points and question marks inside the quotation marks if they are part of the quoted material and outside if they are not. Place all colons and semicolons outside of the quotation marks.

Correct: Did Arthur say, "I'm over here"?

(The question mark is part of the overall sentence but not part of the quoted text.)

Correct: No, he said, "Where are you?"

(The question mark is part of the quoted text.)

Correct: There are three common definitions of the word "gender": colloquial, sociological, and linguistic.

For direct quotations, place all periods and commas that are part of the quoted material inside the quotation marks.

Correct: The Prime Minister said, "The treaty is reasonable and will be signed."

(The Prime Minister spoke a complete sentence with its own stop.)

When using quotation marks for partial or indirect quotations, words-as-words, short-form works, or expressions, American and British punctuation styles differ. Follow ENGVAR.

American: The Prime Minister said that the treaty was "reasonable."

British: The Prime Minister said that the treaty was "reasonable".

American: "Carefree," in general, means "free from care or anxiety."

British: "Carefree", in general, means "free from care or anxiety".

American: Bruce Springsteen, nicknamed "The Boss," performs "Born in the U.S.A."

British: Arthur C. Clarke wrote the short story "Loophole", which was published in 1946.

When quoting data strings or keyboard entries, place periods and commas outside the quotation marks. This is considered correct in all varieties of English.

Correct: To use a long dash on Wikipedia, type in "—". Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:43, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

No. American-style quotation can be misleading, especially to un-American readers. And of course it's illogical. As your own Declaration of Independence says (using your preferred quotation style): "We hold these Truths to be self-evident." It says so among other platitudes, such as: "The History of the Present King of Great-Britain is a History." Wow. Who would have thought it? Hans Adler 15:52, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

You know what, Hans? Take your own advice. Show me. In all our discussions, no one has ever been able to write down an example of how the American style alone could mislead readers in an encyclopedia article. They've always had to chop off half the sentence to do it, and that would be misleading no matter what style of punctuation was used. American punctuation is no more misleading than British spelling. No one thinks that "centre" is pronounced "senn-treh." It's understood that that's just how the language works. It isn't right to ban part of a variety of English solely because some people don't like it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Chopping off half the sentence is one of the things we must guard against in an environment where some editors try to manipulate by misquoting sources that others have no access to. "I used American-style illogical quotation style" must not be a valid defence when caught with such manipulations. Hans Adler 16:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

That's not what I'm talking about. I mean that whenever I ask for an example, people chop off half a sentence, say "It's not the missing words that cause the confusion; it's American punctuation!" and I don't buy it. Saying "I was not hurt" instead of "I was not hurt but deeply offended" is equally misleading regardless of which form of punctuation is used.

Maybe we should continue this discussion in the above section. It would be better if this section were reserved for comments about the proposed text specifically. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:07, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that a reader not used to illogical quotation might examine the placement of the periods, and upon finding that they are inside the quotation marks come to the conclusion that they misremembered what the Declaration of Independence said since apparently it does contain these sentences as complete sentences. This is a very very minor point. But everything that we are discussing here is a very very minor point. Unless you believe that the world is going to end if an international project hosted in the US standardises on NIH punctuation rules. Hans Adler 16:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Except that that doesn't happen in practice, just like people don't say "senn-treh" when they read a British "centre." It's an imaginary problem. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:06, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Oppose Tony (talk) 16:20, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose. I don't see the rationale for the change of style. And going from a fixed logical style to an ENGVAR situation that encourages inconsistency seems to be a step backwards. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:28, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- It's worth pointing out that Wikipedia does not have a fixed logical style. When you see "I went to the store." in a Wikipedia article, even an FA, you can't reasonably conclude anything about whether the period is actually part of the original text. We encourage inconsistency with the current policy, because it is so time-intensive to bring articles into compliance with the recommended style; the only way to meaningfully encourage consistency would be to select styles that could be enforced partly or wholly by bots. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:15, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
  - As reasoning against logical quotation, this has the basic flaw that, with or without thinking about it, the reader's best guess as to whether the punctuation is from the source will be that it is if within the quotes, and not otherwise; therefore, the amount of correct information conveyed by the encyclopedia will increase monotonically with the number of cases in which logical quotation is used. There is a very seductive trap in thinking that just because perfection in unachievable, that somehow justifies not even trying. (Of course the argument isn't very seductive in that form, which is presumably why it propagates in other forms.) --Pi zero (talk) 19:37, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
    - Why do you believe readers would assume logical quotation is being used? The more likely, and correct, assumption, would be for them to assume that Wikipedia is a random amalgam of diverse styles and that style differences convey no information at all. Anyway, to the extent you encourage people to believe that Wikipedia uses logical punctuation - e.g. by claiming it as a house style despite the fact that nobody is actually attempting to make articles conform to that standard - you increase the amount of incorrect information being conveyed as well. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:03, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

That's a pretty big guess, Pi Zero. It seems more likely, and we've seen, that American readers assume that a comma outside the quotes is the result of sloppy work. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The random-amalgam assumption might be more likely (though I doubt most readers would formulate such a sophisticated assumption about the matter), but I don't accept that it would be correct (especially not about the better articles).

I have made no assumption, nor guess, that readers would necessarily even think about what style of quotation is being used, let alone that they would assume logical quotation. I do, however, maintain that it's a rare reader who can prevent their imagination from constructing a model of the source that's being quoted, nor prevent the punctuation of the quote from being suggestive. (Don't think about pink elephants!)

BTW, far be it from me to underestimate the, er, parochiality of the average American reader, but do you really thing they're that well-educated about American writing style? :-) --Pi zero (talk) 03:48, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

A system used by, at minimum, 300 million people? The word "parochial" doesn't truly apply. And yes, most American readers are so used to seeing a comma inside a quotation mark as just part of the quotation process that no, there aren't going to be the kinds of problems that you're claiming. Look at it this way: People grow up reading newspapers and novels—things with dialogue. They're used to seeing the comma in the middle: "I don't know," she said, "what he was thinking." It is understood that the commas is there to separate things and that the character really said "I don't know what he was thinking." That example is a little crude, but it is repeated and repeated and repeated year after year. That's not even counting other types of quotations. Yes, it's going to be ingrained that the comma inside the quotes is just part of the process, just like how "centre" as "senn-ter" and not "senn-treh" is ingrained into British readers. (The question is why British people (whose system treats dialogue the same way) don't make the same assumption.) Darkfrog24 (talk) 06:16, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Unlike most aspects of the MOS, this one is poorly enforced in featured content processes. That's because it's so hard to enforce: you can't look at a page and tell whether it is in compliance. So I wouldn't be confident that better articles conform to the rule - I know my FAs don't because I've never used anything but the American style. Christopher Parham (talk) 13:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Questions of who is likely to know or follow what rule, and the like, are interesting, and I admit that I find it difficult not to be drawn off onto them, but the central point here is one of elementary information theory. The fact that logical quotation can't be checked without consulting the source should be a dead give-away that this is about information content, not just about style. You only have to consult the source in order to fact-check. Note that the use of UK spelling versus US spelling doesn't need to be checked against the source when it's part of the general prose content of the article, but does need to be checked when quoting from another document because spelling within the quote is supposed to be as in the source; and yes, fact-checking takes work, and so we more often get it wrong (but we always aspire to improve). --Pi zero (talk) 13:16, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. It was difficult enough to gain consensus for the present guideline, and I doubt that there will be sufficient consensus now to change it. Let sleeping dogs lie. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 16:37, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose. Logical quotation is one thing that WP:MOS gets altogether right, following a fundamental encyclopedic rationale despite parochial forces to the contrary. --Pi zero (talk) 18:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose for reasons I stated in preceding section, and for the reasons others have stated here. In addition, there is a high degree of compliance with this guideline throughout Wikipedia, especially in GAs and even more so in FAs. Changing the guideline would suddenly make all these articles wrong. —Finell 19:45, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

That would be true any time the guideline is changed and improved. As I've said in other cases, the fact that there would be a lot of work involved is no reason not to improve the MoS. We should simply accept that bringing articles into compliance would be a slow and gradual process. Think of it this way: The American English FA articles that are written using the British style might become out of compliance with the MoS once it is updated, but right now, they're out of compliance with what's right, proper and correct. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Oppose For all the reasons above. We need stability on MOS. Don't change anything unless there is widespread consensus for a change, and not just a few scattered dissenters. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:35, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Using ENGVAR for spelling variations is problematic enough, but it would be inadvisable to extend it to punctuation. I can't help but think that the end result would only damage our attempts to bring a professional look to the project. --Ckatz^chat _spy 00:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

If we're talking about how it looks, it may be relevant, then, that professional writers in the U.S. use American punctuation. In U.S. English, it is U.S. punctuation that looks professional. To U.S. eyes, commas and periods outside the quotes look sloppy. Darkfrog24 (talk) 06:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Support Punctuation, and its placement, is as much a part of grammar as word choice and word order. To claim that there is a guideline, namely ENGVAR, that respects differences in national varieties of English usage such as spelling and grammar, and then to specifically exclude a major part of grammar from that guideline seems out of alignment, for lack of a better term. All punctuation should follow the general guideline of ENGVAR, for consistency with ourselves.oknazevad (talk) 00:27, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. Because Wikipedia often discusses computer-related matters, and it is critical to distinguish whether terminal punctuation is part of text within quotes, logical quotation serves Wikipedia better than any other approach. Even though few people bother to type it this way, a valid web address is "http://www.yahoo.com." --Jc3s5h (talk) 00:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia often discusses music. It often discusses history. It often discusses linguistics, but we don't write the articles in phonetic characters. Both American and British punctuation styles permit outside-of-quote placement for data strings. Computer issues are already covered using standard punctuation forms. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Many fields use computers or store relevant information on the web, so computer syntax is likely to come up in any article. I don't know what to make of " Both American and British punctuation styles permit outside-of-quote placement for data strings. Computer issues are already covered using standard punctuation forms" except to say that while there may be ways to avoid using quotes in connection with computer syntax, many writers will chose not to use these quote-avoidance techniques. --Jc3s5h (talk) 21:01, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

And yet most fields, if in the U.S., use American punctuation in their professional journals. This is an encyclopedia. It is meant to be read by human beings, and while it should be searchable by machines, there is no need to use an inappropriate, incorrect or non-encyclopedic writing style just to accommodate the traditions used in data storage. By "Both American and British styles permit out-of-quote punctuation in the case of data strings," I mean To use a long dash on Wikipedia, type in "—". is perfectly correct American English. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:45, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Oppose per Pi zero (and the so-called logical style is neither American nor British) Sssoul (talk) 08:35, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose: I took 1st through 3rd grades in the U.S. and then attended primary school in England, where, naturally but inexplicably, the quotation rules changed (then I returned to the states in mid-First Form/7th grade). I've always attempted (when not constrained by a prevalent publication style) something similar to Wikipedia's logical punctuation, i.e., put closing punctuation within quotation marks if but only if it's in the original source. Very few ordinary readers of Wikipedia know either that there's a trans-Atlantic difference between punctuation conventions or that something called EngVar exists, let alone how it works. So they'd have no way of knowing whether that U.S.-inserted artificial comma, or that U.K.-excluded authentic period/full-stop, was in the original text. Of course they're even less likely to know about logical punctuation, but at least when the extract or quotation is reproduced at fifth-hand and stripped of surrounding comments—as happens to much of Wikipedia—it's more likely to show what the original source did. And while no one should be bludgeoned, bullied or intimidated into silence by majority opinion, this is breathtakingly close to WP:Snowball: we've argued this with Darkfrog half a dozen times over the past year, and the likelihood of a different consensus than the longstanding trans-Atlantic one is pretty slim. —— Shakescene (talk) 06:44, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

And, P.S., EngVar isn't an appropriate analogy because it's always and imperatively required that within any quotation, the source's spelling be used, since we want to reproduce the exact text for our readers. An article in U.S. style about Lincoln that's quoting Gladstone's writing should use Gladstone's (British) spelling within the quotation marks. A British-styled article about Churchill that's quoting FDR's writing should use Roosevelt's U.S. spelling within the quotation. Logical quotation is much closer to the spirit of this rule: British editors shouldn't put any of Roosevelt's periods outside quotation-marks, and U.S. editors shouldn't insert a non-Churchillian comma into Churchill's prose.—— Shakescene (talk) 06:59, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

But I am proposing that current ENGVAR rules apply to punctuation. If an article about Churchill quotes an American source, then the spelling in that source is preserved even if it is American. However, spelling used in the article text itself must be British. That is what I am proposing here. Of course intra-quote periods and commas would stay where the sources put them, but any body text would be written using the article's prevailing style. Hence Bruce Springsteen, or "The Boss," performs "Born in the U.S.A." but Clarke wrote "Loophole", which was published in 1946. (Unless Springsteen is mentioned in passing in British article or "Loophole" in an American one, etc.)Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:06, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Weak support. --___A. di M. 13:40, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose. I disagree that the move-the-commas style is "American". Some American and some British sources use each style. But the move-the-commas style doesn't make any sense, on either side of the pond. --Trovatore (talk) 19:14, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. Logical quotation is clearer and more precise, and seems to be opposed solely on grounds of pride. Ilkali (talk) 20:14, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

That may be going just a bit too far. People don't dislike logical quotations "solely" because of "pride." There are a few reasons that this topic keeps coming up again, and again, and again:

The American rule makes it much more easy; you don't have to go back to the source every time you quote anything to make sure that the punctuation does or does not "belong" to the quotation.

Asking people to do things in new and unfamiliar ways and expecting them to comply is inherently risky. I am a total grammar nut and I had no idea that Wikipedia didn't use the American quotation style until I stumbled on this page for a wholly-unrelated reason. Moreover, Wikipedia typically embraces the fact that not everything in the world is homogeneous, and does not, for example, expect everyone to spell things the same way. This also makes this particular guideline rather unanticipated for most. It's very difficult to find other Wikipedia rules where the British usage is mandated. This particular rule is made even more confusing because the style manual feigns neutrality and does not say that the British rule is being favored over the American one

What's the point in having a rule that we know is constantly being violated, and that we have no easy, non-monotonous, way to fix? Agnosticaphid (talk) 01:26, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

This is about accuracy, not mere "style". Getting facts right is more work than systematically erasing them from the article, that's quite true. That doesn't mean we shouldn't aspire to get our facts right. --Pi zero (talk) 13:16, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Weak support while I was passing by. It is my opinion that the logical system is more uh... logical and that the "American" system should be avoided in principle, but it is a widely-used system, and Wikipedia is not the place to fight against the "American system". Wikipedia should not try to change the rules, but only follow the rules. ENGVAR allows British English and American English, and I think it is clear that the punctuation is closely related to grammar in the perception of the persons using it. My support is only weak because I see that it may introduce potential edit wars between editors who want their favo[u]red punctuation on articles, but compared to the problems following from ENGVAR allowing multiple variants of English it will be nothing. --EdgeNavidad (talk) 12:04, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a proposal to change a guideline. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Related argument at Japanese tea ceremony

Resolved

– More rehash, as per all of the above.

Advice appreciated here. User talk:Exploding Boy#Japanese tea ceremony ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 08:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

(Copied a discussion being made on User talk:Exploding Boy#Japanese tea ceremony in order to catch the attention of more editors. Subsequent discussion should be made here not there.) ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 02:15, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I am afraid your revert on Japanese tea ceremony [5] seems incorrect. Your edit summary contradict your revert. Please review it again. Thank you. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 03:19, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The rule is that punctuation should go outside the quotation mark if not in a direct quote. The items that WikiHorse changed were not direct quotes, but words in quotation marks. One example is:

The Japanese tea ceremony, also called "the Way of Tea," is ...

Since "the Way of Tea" is not a direct quote there is no need to place the comma outside the closing quotation mark. Exploding Boy (talk) 04:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Isn't the rule that punctuation should go outside the quotation mark if not in a direct quote? Then, since "the Way of Tea" is not a direct quote, there need to place the comma outside the closing quotation mark? Please see WP:LQ and Quotation_mark#Punctuation. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 05:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The rule is that any punctuation not originally in a direct quote goes outside the closing quotation mark. It does not apply here, since "the Way of Tea" is not a direct quote, therefore the punctuation can go inside the quotation mark. Exploding Boy (talk) 07:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I requested advice to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#punctuation marks inside the Quotation marks. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 10:26, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

No, the logical-quotation rule is independent of whether the quoted words are a direct quote or are a title. After all, a title that is quoted is merely a special case of a direct quote. Since the title does not contain a comma, the logical-quotation rule says that the comma should not be inside quotation marks. Eubulides (talk) 08:43, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

What Eubulides said. Tony (talk) 09:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia has this rule, but it's a bad one; there's no logical reason why an article that uses American English spelling shouldn't use American English punctuation too. The deal with commas, periods and quotation marks is that American English says to put them inside and British English says to put them in or out depending on the stop (like Americans do with question marks). Wikipedia's rule is similar to the British one. However, because this article is written in American English, it should use American punctuation to match. In this specific case, Exploding Boy is right: There is next to zero chance of confusion if the comma is placed inside the quote marks.

Of course, you could always go on the talk page and suggest changing the article to British English. It wouldn't be worth getting into a fight over, but it might be worth a try. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

...shouldn't we be having this conversation on the article's talk page so that its contributors can weigh in? Let me speak from experience here, if you're considering reverting each other's changes, you could be mistaken for edit warring. Unless this is purely academic, you should probably put this where people can see it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the last two comments and point out additionally that people are missing the crucial point: "the Way of Tea" is not a direct quote. It's not a quote at all, but simply an instance of a phrase being set of from the surrounding text by being placed in quotation marks. Exploding Boy (talk) 17:24, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

There's no need to copy a discussion here that has already happened elsewhere. It's misleading since I, for one, am posting here for the first time. Exploding Boy (talk) 04:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

The MOS guideline on logical quotation applies by its terms to all uses of quotations marks. It would be too confusing to have one guideline for direct quotes, another for other uses of quotation marks. However, I looked at the article, and this was not a proper use of quotation marks in the lead. I fixed this and some other style issues in the lead. —Finell 05:32, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, not being telepathic, we can't tell for sure, but what seems to be confusing people in practice is deviating from the two most accepted systems of punctuation. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:04, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

It's obviusly true that we can't tell for sure, but this seems an unlikely explanation. Here's an alternative: these folks are being confused because they expect rules of punctuation to be arbitrary, and they're suffering withdrawal symptoms as they acclimate to logical quotation that has a simple logical basis.

On the main point:

It doesn't matter, for logical quotation, whether the quoted material is a "direct quote". The comma isn't part of the quoted material, which is "the Way of Tea", therefore logical quotation would place it outside the quotation marks. --Pi zero (talk) 21:59, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

But it's not literally logical. It's just called that. Even if it were somehow more logical, it makes about as much sense to change the rules of punctuation as to change the rules of spelling to make everything phonetic.

Concur that Wikipedia's "logical" rule would place the comma outside. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:23, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Logical is a precise technical description of what it is. It disposes punctuation based first and foremost on the logical status of the punctuation. --Pi zero (talk) 00:57, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

"Logical" is too subjective of a word to be precise. If you want the precise term, "datasafe quotes" would work. It's the original name for the practice and it emphasizes its purpose of preserving data strings. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:42, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I cannot believe this is still going on. Tony (talk) 14:07, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Not still per se. It's been brought up again by another person. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:56, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent) See many, many previous discussions on this. The wording in the guideline is clear. Wikpedia did not make up the term "logical quotation", so if you don't like it, start a campaign about it somewhere else. This has nothing to do with WP:ENGVAR issues, as logical quotation is not used exclusively outside the US and typesetter's quotation (a.k.a. "American" or "illogical" is not exclusively American. All of this is very, very old news. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 19:10, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Amen! (Or, until next time.)—Finell 18:13, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Retaining variety of English

WP:RETAIN currently states:

If an article has evolved using predominantly one variety, the whole article should conform to that variety, unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic. In the early stages of writing an article, the variety chosen by the first major contributor to the article should be used. Where an article that is not a stub shows no signs of which variety it is written in, the first person to make an edit that disambiguates the variety is equivalent to the first major contributor.

I think the intention is that once a spelling style (or date format) has been established (by first usage), that is the presumptive style for that article (UNLESS there are strong national ties, or perhaps an explicit consensus is developed by editors to make a change). If someone makes a style change, regardless of how long it stands, any edit-wars are to be settled in favour of the original variety. However, AS WORDED, the guideline only covers the "early stages" of an article (and articles that are not stubs yet are still ambiguous on variety), and is not CLEAR on what is to be done with articles where the style was initiated many years ago. It should just say something like:

"...The variety of spelling chosen by the first contributor should be used for the life of the article, unless.... Where an article shows no signs in its early stages of which variety it is written in, the first edit that disambiguates the variety shall become the accepted variety for that article."

Note that speaking of "the first edit" makes it less of a personal matter. The same ambiguity exists in WP:DATE--JimWae (talk) 22:03, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Tony (talk) 04:15, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

In similar vein, I wonder if, instead of saying "the variety chosen by the first major contributor should be used", it should be phrased as "the variety used in the first major contribution", thereby de-emphasizing the personal nature of it and focusing on the contribution itself.oknazevad (talk) 20:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd go more active: "Continue using the variety employed by the first major contributor." Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Problem with that is it still refers to the contributor, not the contribution. If the point, at least partly, is to de-personalize the guideline then "Continue using the variety employed in the first major contribution." oknazevad (talk) 21:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Personally I think that stubs that are given a major expansion in one shortish period, say x5 à la DYK rules, should be able to be changed by the expanding editor, if the subject is "neutral" of course, and if no one objects. Johnbod (talk) 09:50, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I concur with both Okanazevad on depersonalization (right now it sounds like a contest), and with Johnbod on his point about stub expansion. Not sure we need to address that here, though. Not opposed to doing so, either. Per WP:BEANS and WP:CREEP, is there any evidence of people editwarring over ENGVAR issues after expansion of stubs? — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 19:06, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

←I think the active voice far clearer. Additionally, this has long been the format for such content in other related MoS guidelines, like this one. –Whitehorse1 17:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be some disagreement over wording of this section.
User:oknazevad changed the wording to his preferred version here citing "depersonalization" and this discussion.

At the very most, beside User:oknazevad, 2 users in the discussion shared his opinion. That is just not sufficient, or a "consensus" as the editsummary claimed, to overturn such long established community agreement. Hence, I restored the consensus-supported version. The existing phrasing has been part of the Manual of Style since 2005:

June 2007: "variety chosen by the first major contributor"
May 2007: "variety established by the first contributor"
April 2006: "spelling style preferred by the first major contributor" [link]
14 May 2005: "spelling style preferred by the first major contributor" [link]
(many other revisions around this time are not visible, though it appears the text stems from this period cf. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jguk)

We risk sacrificing clarity and readability, for the sake of treading on eggshells in an attempt to proclaim we don't advocate ownership. Phrasing in active voice, however, is just good, clear writing. –Whitehorse1 21:32, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Disagree – I agree with oknazevad and others who point out that personalization concerns trump voice concerns in this case. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 21:39, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

(interject) There's nothing like a personal remark being made by the established wording that I can see though. The new version comes across as newspeak. We don't tie ourselves in knots seeking to avoid "Editors are encouraged to add alt text to all images for which it seems reasonable" in favor of a passive or implied passive voice version, for example. –Whitehorse1 22:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Say what? "Editors are encouraged" is in fact in the passive voice. Are you sure passive voice is really what you mean? Because it's hard to follow your comments, if it is. --Trovatore (talk) 22:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Wow, did I write that? Yes, I did. *blush* That illustrates the very definition of passive voice. I'll strike my comment. Thanks for catching my mistake; clearly I wasn't paying attention properly when I wrote that! –Whitehorse1 22:46, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Obviously I agree with Aladdin Sane here. I also dispute that, in this case, the passsive voice is inherently less clear. The passive voice has it's place in the English language for a reason. It emphasizes what is being done as opposed to who is performing the action. That is desirable at times, particularly when the person performing the action is ultimately irrelevant and potentially distracting. I believe that is the case here.

I also object to the characterization in the reverting edit summary. I believe waiting nearly two weeks between my original comments, and recieving nothing but support on the talk page is sufficient to make a change to the MoS. oknazevad (talk) 21:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

There was no characterization in the reverting edit summary. There was a direct quote in quotation marks drawn from your own edit summary. On reflection, the asterisk emphasis was unhelpful. My apologies, Oknazevad. There may have been "nothing but support", but with just 2 comments there was almost nothing in the way of replies. Unfortunately, that's often par for the course in style discussions (read "I feel your pain"). I throughly agree with you there, Oknazevad. Lack of strong objections after nearly two weeks is perfectly sufficient for a change. Having had a subsequent change within a couple've days though, simple reversion of that seems less suited than discussion where the original has stood for such a long period as well as being echoed in other similar guidelines. At least, it seems reasonable to continue discussion with the established by consensus version in place. –Whitehorse1 22:46, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Comment. It's true that passages that make excessive use of passive voice can come across as dry, tentative, and hard to understand. But it's nonsense to assert that passive voice has no place in good, clear writing. Good, clear writing cannot be reduced to anything so mechanical. --Trovatore (talk) 22:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Of course that would be nonsense. I would never say that. Simply, the established version has clarity, impact and readability lacking in the altered version. –Whitehorse1 22:10, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

To expand, my objection isn't mere didacticism. It's not a case of my having read somewhere that passive voice is undesirable, then deciding to eradicate it wherever I see it. Rather, Orwell's sixth rule would apply even if such a blinkered approach was ever appropriate. :) I genuinely find the established wording clear, concise and effective. –Whitehorse1 22:46, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Use of endash in article titles

Good Olfactory (talk · contribs) has been moving article titles by replacing hyphens (which can be typed on a standard keyboard) with endashes (which can't).

I do not think that endashes or emdashes should be used in article titles. Their use in text is is fine for those who are bothered by such things. Is there anywhere that it says that endashes or emdashes must be used in article titles. A hyphen in a title is fine, as it allows easy entering of the title via a standard keyboard. Please do not use the "a redirect has been created" arguement against this complaint. If an article is created with an endash in the title, and no redirect is created with a hyphen, the situation could arise that another editor creates an article with the hyphenated title and we end up with two articles on the same subject.

This issue really needs to be sorted out, and the MoS clarified re the use of dashes in article titles. Mjroots (talk) 06:15, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

From the Mos:- Special characters—such as the slash (/), plus sign (+), braces ({ }), and square brackets ([ ])—are avoided; the ampersand (&) is replaced by and, unless it is part of a formal name (Emerson, Lake & Palmer).

I'd say that endashes and emdashes would also qualify as "special characters" and that the above section needs to be expanded. Mjroots (talk) 06:20, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree; it makes composing a wikilink (which has already and idiotically been made far too laborious and chancy by a case-sensitivity that serves no purpose) incredibly difficult for anything with a date range or compound words. And redirects don't help with subheads, when you're trying to compose a wikilink to a particular section within an article, such as Article title#Subheading, date-date, converted to Article title#Subheading, date–date or Article title#Subheading, date—date.

There was a recent Request for comment or Centralized discussion about em- and en-dashes in which I should have participated, but didn't because it seemed like diving even further into abstruse stylistic arcana, and I think that's given licence to all the people and bots that roam around converting hyphens into dashes, often on a drive-by patrol. There are often good reasons of style and clarity for preferring one or the other within text, but like using straight quotation marks (found on standard keyboards) instead of the curly apostrophes and quotation-marks [Alt+0145 to Alt+0148] that I otherwise prefer, this is an area where a better style should yield to the keyboards in front of us. I'm not clear what consensus was reached, or by how big a margin, but I think it's very ripe for early reopening. —— Shakescene (talk) 06:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

This has been resolved for both article titles and category names: where en dashes are prescribed, they should be used throughout. If you have a Windows short keyboard (i.e., without the numerical pad), that's a pity—I'd never put up with that. But fact is you can easily click on the en dash insert immediately beneath the edit box. It's very very simple. Otherwise, use "Symbol" -> "Insert" (but the tools we provide here are quicker). Good Olfactory is doing the project a favour by introducing correct punctuation into articles titles. I think I'll join this editor in doing so. Tony (talk) 07:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict):I have a numeric keyboard and have memorized several dozen ASCII codes, but recalling and using them still slows me down, while using printers' style doesn't help the average, ordinary reader or editor (or one with an even-more-limited keyboard). It also doesn't address the subhead problem. Puzzling out what might be the exact format (capitals, accents and dashes/hyphens) of a wikilink's target has probably taken the equivalent of days out of my life, days that could have been spent on research, creating content or updating some obsolescent tables. Out of curiosity, why was exactly the opposite policy decided for curly quotation-marks and apostrophes?—— Shakescene (talk) 08:14, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Curly quotes was simply a case of good luck. Had any of the various people who pushed the project into accepting dashes really cared about curly quotes then that would be a lost cause as well. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:23, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Where has this been resolved? The MoS clearly states that special characters should not be used in article titles. As the endash and emdash need use of the ALT key plus the numerical pad to create them, they are special characters and therefore should not be used. Mjroots (talk) 08:00, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

The answer is there in the manual of style, which is why I linked to it in my summary of the move. It says, under "En dashes in page names": "When naming an article, a hyphen is not used as a substitute for an en dash that properly belongs in the title, for example in Eye–hand span. However, editors should provide a redirect page to such an article, using a hyphen in place of the en dash (e.g., Eye-hand span), to allow the name to be typed easily when searching Wikipedia. See also Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision)." Until that changes, I'm not going to change what I'm doing. You have been assuming they are "special characters" but the MOS does not confirm your assumption. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:02, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

GOF is doing the correct thing. Don't use "special characters" means don't create an article named Abott & Costello (for a duo), or Canadian Criminal Code, §2.3.3 but rather Abott and Costello and Canadian Criminal Code, Section 2.3.3. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 08:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

So, the MoS is self-contradictory (or should that be self–contradictory) then? One part saying not to use special characters in titles, and another part saying to use them. Not a satisfactory state of affairs at all. Mjroots (talk) 08:54, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Reading the MoS doesn't mean that you need to stop using common sense. 2 + 2 = 5 is fine where it is, even if there is a + and an = in the title. The proper way to write Gell-Mann–Nishijima formula is Gell-Mann–Nishijima formula, not Gell-Mann-Nishijima formula. So the article should be at Gell-Mann–Nishijima formula (and it is). No one's forcing you to go through the trouble of writing the endashes, just don't undo the work of those who copyedit the articles. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 09:05, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Why does the assumption continue to be made that the en-dash is a "special character" being referred to? Obviously, there is no contradiction when this assumption is discarded. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

The assumption is made because as previously stated, an en-dash or em-dash are not found on a standard keyboard, but need the ALT code to type them, or use of special Wikitext such as – Mjroots (talk) 09:15, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't seem like a safe assumption. It's easier to read the MOS as if it doesn't contradict itself. It's up to individuals to figure out how to use their keyboards. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:39, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict): At WT:Naming conventions#Readers over editors, someone asked for examples of choosing the editors' preferences over ordinary readers'. I'm afraid that the last sentence above comes uncomfortably close to being a good example of that attitude (like everyone's assumed responsibility to learn the International Phonetic Alphabet). —— Shakescene (talk) 10:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, I agree readers should be preferred over editors. Readers benefit from reading text that uses en-dashes properly, because using hyphens where en-dashes are needed very easily causes confusion of meanings. Only WP editors complain because they have to learn how to type them. Everyone else just relies on redirects. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:18, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I cannot think of any situation where the use of the wrong length of dash has caused any confusion of meaning in a sentence. Is this really "very easily" done? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:53, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is—especially when a reader is not familiar with the topic. For instance, what does Chemin de fer Châtel-St-Denis-Palézieux mean? If someone didn't know the names of these Swiss placenames, they wouldn't know if there was one place called "Châtel-St-Denis-Palézieux" and the rail line was named after this place; or if there was one place called "Châtel" and another called "St-Denis-Palézieux" and the rail line connected these two cities; or if there were actually three places—one called "Châtel", one called "St-Denis", and one called "Palézieux", and the train line connects all three; or if there were only two after all—one called "Châtel-St-Denis" and the other called "Palézieux", and the train line connects the two. The latter is the correct one of these options, and naming the title to the correct Chemin de fer Châtel-St-Denis–Palézieux makes the meaning at least somewhat more comprehensible to an outsider. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:22, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Forgive me for saying so, but I rather think that's an edge case. There are certainly not that many articles which use two different styles of dash in their titles. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:27, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

You'd be surprised; in French in particular, there are many. And there are also many articles that include just one dash, but one of the entities being linked with the dash has two names. If you write "Saint Simeon-Santana", does it mean a name—"Simeon-Santana", which is preceded by "Saint", or does it mean "Saint Simeon" and "Santana" being linked by an en-dash? It's easy to pooh-pooh examples that are provided upon request, but there are reasons for the conventions as they now stand. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:10, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. That rather smacks of Fowler's words regarding the use of hyphens in English place names in The King's English. Anyway, I can see this as a valid exception. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

You're not helping - editors don't need to use special dashes. --NE2 09:56, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't make any difference as long as there's a redirect from the version with the normal dash. Simply use the redirect and let others worry about it. --NE2 09:18, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

It does make a difference, as I said above, in section and sub-section headings, which don't get redirects. —— Shakescene (talk) 09:25, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Ideally you shouldn't be linking to a section heading, but to something that redirects to that section (such as list of defunct Illinois railroads), so that less needs fixing if the section name changes or if the section is split out. --NE2 09:29, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict): I'm sorry, but I don't catch your precise meaning, although I understand your point about the instability of section headers. At first blush, redirecting to another redirect would seem to double the risk, but I'm really unclear as to your suggested alternative. —— Shakescene (talk) 10:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

For instance, rather than link to list of Illinois railroads#Defunct railroads, I'll link to list of defunct Illinois railroads. Then if the section is renamed, or a separate list of defunct railroads is created, only the redirects need to be changed, rather than every link to the section. (There's also {{anchor}} as another method of assuring that the anchor title remains.) --NE2 13:24, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

There are often good reasons for linking or redirecting to sections, which is why {{R to section}} exists to use on redirect pages. Mjroots (talk) 10:02, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say there aren't. I'm saying that it's better to use a redirect to a section than a direct link. --NE2 10:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I guess that part of the MOS should more clearly explain what is meant by "special characters". I assumed that it meant "characters which the MediaWiki software treats specially", but 2 + 2 = 5 is a perfectly working article title, so I was mistaken. (And there's no way to create an article with, say, # in its name, so saying that one "should not" do that would be quite weird.) Does anyone know what "special characters" is supposed to mean in that sentence, exactly? --___A. di M. 16:20, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree it should be clarified. If it literally means anything that does not appear as an actual key on a standard keyboard (which I doubt), there are thousands of misnamed articles out there, because it's very common for articles to use diacritics. These are no more "non-standard" than an en-dash. But I don't think that's what it's referring to. I always have interpreted it as meaning that we shouldn't use special characters where equivalent words will suffice, as in not using "&" when "and" works, not using ¢ when "cents" will work, etc. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I've always interpreted it as "anything which isn't found on a standard keyboard" personally, with grudging exceptions for diacritics only in the case where there's no commonly-used ASCII alternative. I'm one of those weird people who actually cares that find-in-page works for people who don't have ndash buttons on their keyboards, so as far as I'm concerned we should be actively fighting against their proliferation on those grounds. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:23, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

All of the examples it makes (slash, plus sign, braces and brackets) are found on a standard keyboard. --___A. di M. 16:33, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

That was why I was keen to point out that this was my personal interpretation of the situation. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 01:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't think the determinant is whether a character is on any particular type of keyboard. En dashes appear in the edit tools just under the edit box. If you use a short keyboard, you simply click on that tool. Very simple. Tony (talk) 09:22, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Very simple for sighted readers. With javascript enabled. Who happen to even know that the editing toolbar exists. I think it's been well established that you don't consider there to be any technical hindrance here. It is also pretty well established that most people disagree with that. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:16, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

It’s not correct to say that “most people” think there is a technical hindrance in using the correct characters. The box containing those characters appears at the bottom of the edit window unless you decide to turn it off in your preferences, causing that hindrance to yourself by doing so. It is also completely incorrect to decide issues like this based on how easy certain characters are to type, not least because it is easy for anyone who wants to use the correct characters to make themselves able to type them. I personally have used a freely downloadable program to design myself a keyboard layout which allows me to type almost any character I could ever wish to type (all kinds of dashes, curly quotes, accented letters, mathematical symbols, …, …). Anyone else who wants to do this is completely capable of doing so. – MTC (talk) 11:56, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

That it is possible to download a program to completely reconfigure one's keyboard is probably the least convincing argument I've ever heard for proliferation of exotic characters in Web-editable text. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:31, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I concur. It's not a good argument. However, "X is correct English and Y is incorrect English" is more than argument enough. Of course we shouldn't expect people to reconfigure their keyboards. What we should do is use and encourage correct English punctuation at all times while acknowledging the difficulties that this may place on non-professional writers. What that would mean in this case would be to simply allow editors to correct hyphens and dashes article titles, even if this involves technically moving the page, and for everyone to treat it as the minor change that it is.

One thing that might help with this? A page on Wikipedia giving a list of common codes, such as & m d a s h ; for the long dash. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:04, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

See List of XML and HTML character entity references. ⤺ms.⁴⁵ 00:05, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that "correcting" and "creating" aren't really different tasks here. If a template is created with an endash in the title then users may find it very difficult to actually transclude said template: this exact problem has been brought up on WT:FOOTY for seasonal navbox templates several times. It's all very well saying that it's easy to create redirects, but the problem could be avoided entirely by a simple piece of advice which would only offend that (sadly very vocal) minority who can tell the difference between an endash and a hyphen on a low-DPS computer display. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:09, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Is that what this is really about? People can't tell the difference between the two on their computer displays? How do you know this length-judging-impaired cohort is the majority? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:27, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I can see a difference in the final display, but it's damned-near-impossible to see in the edit box (Courier New in its attempts to replicate a typewriter's output with equal-width characters, doesn't do a very good job at all with such nuances). So I have to look at a preview to tell what's been entered by previous editors. —— Shakescene (talk)

Sounds like another "helping the editor vs. helping the reader" issue. If it's a problem you could change your preview font. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:42, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Readers should be editors, and vice-versa. And when we mention technical problems, we're not usually asking for individual personal assistance, rather we're using our own situations as examples of what other readers or editors must face. Helping me doesn't help anyone who's not reading this or solve the difficulty. Are you proposing to change the default font for the edit box across Wikipedia? —— Shakescene (talk) 22:29, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

No, because I see no evidence that it's a broad problem. I haven't changed my font, and I can tell the difference, which suggests to me it may be a problem particular to you or to a group of editors, but not necessarily to a majority, let alone everyone. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:32, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Out of interest, exactly how much evidence would be needed to convince you that this wasn't just an isolated problem for a handful of editors? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps more than one or two of editors complaining about it. I've never heard of this problem before. I don't experience it, but maybe my computer display is better than others. My subjective evaluation of the scope of the problem is hardly relevant, though—I was just trying to offer a suggestion to Shakescene to help him out, which he apparently took as some sort of affront. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:10, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

No I didn't take any offence; sorry if I gave that impression or seemed to react that way to an offer of help. It's just that often (especially at WP:Village Pump (proposals)), someone will bring up a technical difficulty as representative of what others may face and those who've mastered the technical aspects will offer an individual software fix that doesn't address the general perceived problem. For example, there's no tab to let you see code without opening it to editing, and there's nothing to encourage the first person at a talk page to start a new section instead of typing away without a subhead (which is why the majority of talk pages start with disorganized, seemingly-random chatter): while those who understand Monobooks, Javascript and CSS can offer individual editors simple fixes, that doesn't resolve the issue for ordinary uninvolved editors. —— Shakescene (talk) 13:18, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I see; thanks for explaining and I'm sorry for the misunderstanding. I'll refrain from offering user-specific solutions that don't more broadly address the problem presented. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:27, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Chris Cunningham and NE2: what is a "normal dash", please? Tony (talk) 12:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
- -, obviously. Call it whatever you want; to me it's a normal dash and I'll use it. --NE2 13:43, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
  - Use the hyphen as much as you like as long as you are aware that there are editors who care enough to change it when it is incorrectly used. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:42, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
    - I used to be one of those until I learned that I was wrong about its use. Chances are I still don't understand it fully. --NE2 23:46, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
NE2, a hyphen is a hyphen; an en dash is an en dash. Neither is less "normal" than the other. Please do not "use the hyphen as much as you like". You will be degrading the project if you do. Hyphens-and-dashes are as different as a period and a comma–and as a presumably competent writer - since you participate on this page – you owe it to the project to encourage the correct–and–standard usage of punctuation, not to go around destructively-encouraging misuse. Tony (talk) 23:57, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
- No. --NE2 00:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
  - Now that's what I call collaboration. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
    - The rest of us would be more willing to enforce WP:HYPHEN and WP:DASH throughout Wikipedia, if the hyphen after "competent writer" and at least two other items in the third post above this one, were conformed to those guidelines. Art LaPella (talk) 04:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- Hyphens are more than sufficient for the majority of English uses, although I'm swayed by Good Olfactory's arguments above regarding the use of both dashes and hyphens in one title. Obsessive insistence upon a firm distinction between the characters used to indicate dashes has little real purpose save for to pacify that small group of readers who insist on typographical purity; that group thankfully lost the debate over curly quotes, which had an almost identical rationale. I've long been in favour of a technological solution here (having wikicode be able to automatically correct a hyphen to a dash when appropriate, and to convert double-hyphen to an emdash) as that seems to be an adequate compromise to me. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- It's clear that the project is fine with people using hyphens where an en dash would nominally be appropriate (at least, nobody is being criticized for this practice). Evidently, there are also people who care deeply about making these corrections and are happy to trail behind and make them. This seems like a very reasonable balance and it's absurd to suggest that others are degrading the project for not obeying minor punctuation rules that generally speaking have no impact on readability or clarity. You're putting the cart before the horse: valuable content that isn't perfectly punctuated is always better than no valuable content at all. Christopher Parham (talk) 14:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
  - I disagree with just about every word Christopher Parham wrote above. Tony (talk) 14:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
    - You mean that people are free to just type hyphens initially, and someone will come along later to convert them to dashes as needed? That is indeed the usual system. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
      - Re-threaded for sanity. Tony, would it be too much to suggest that you adopt the threading convention used by everyone else on the project and place your replies to a given paragraph directly after it and indented? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:18, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it's dangerous to create a page with en-dashes in the title without redirecting the hyphen-only version to it. However, I don't see any reason to drop non-ASCII characters from titles. Would you rename Bose–Einstein condensate? Gauss–Seidel method? —Ben FrantzDale (talk) 01:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Note that changing Bose–Einstein condensate and Gauss–Seidel method to use hyphens would make ambiguous the fact that Levi-Civita connection and Lennard-Jones potential are both named after individuals with hyphenated names (Tullio Levi-Civita and John Lennard-Jones respectively). —Ben FrantzDale (talk) 13:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The best solution is to use the endash'd version as the article title and create redirects with the hyphen. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 11:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Wasn't this specifically discussed in mjroots's initial post? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Not really. His argument against the practice is weak and based on a very unlikely "what if". It's not difficult to create a redirect, and it's entirely worth it for the sake of good punctuation. What needs to be appreciated is that dashes are not merely aesthetic objects – they alter meaning as well. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 07:13, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I suspect there might be more support for proliferation of en-dashes if its advocates made an attempt to be a little more understanding. Powers ^T 14:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Section names should not normally contain links

Was this ever redacted from WP:MOSHEAD? I saw a discussion this October, about how the technical reason had been overcome. I've searched the entire Wikipedia Talk namespace and archives with the search phrase " section links prefix:Wikipedia talk: ", and scanned WT:MOS manually, and cannot find it anymore. I've asked the computer, but not gotten the correct answer. It's time to ask y'all. — Cpiral Cpiral 20:43, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I am skeptical that the technical reason has been overcome. Please see User:Wavelength/About Wikipedia/Link test page one.

-- Wavelength (talk) 20:53, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

(I saw it.) I remember from the conversation I search for mentioned that it was an accessibility issue for some kind of browser for the blind or something. They had overcome the reader's software limitation. I can imagine that the data from the download of a heading was misprogrammed to start reading the wrong article, and that it was feasibly, no longer disabling for those who upgraded the software. It's intriguing, no? That's why I ask. — Cpiral Cpiral 23:57, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Even if it has, from a purely stylistic point, they should still be discouraged, I believe. The larger font inherent in a section header would make the blue wikilink garish and distracting. And there's no reason to include wikilinks in headers anyway. Any relevant wikilink could and should be covered in the ensuing text, as it is now. Links purely in the headers without relevant context is poor writing.oknazevad (talk) 21:11, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, OK, I can buy those arguments. But now I have to ask what you think of List of operating systems? Garish, yes. But it is a List article. Are we supposed to fix it? —Aladdin Sane (talk) 23:40, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Not too horrible, due to the article's list nature and the fact that they aren't top level headers. But I could see using a {{main}} link directly under the header instead. oknazevad (talk) 23:46, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

-- Wavelength (talk) 23:02, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

(I learned there: no markup in talk space, section headings.) I agree they should be discouraged for the most part, but WP:IAR means there may be the rare appropriate case for links made of section heading phrases; however even if only a few thousand, blind-reader tech devices are affected by a million^th of the wiki, I wanna know. Could be the Blind Samari come to improve Wikipedia! — Cpiral Cpiral 23:57, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't be too alarmed. The errors reported seem to be related to some script of something generating a new page based on headings in various existing pages. It appears to be a problem with that bot, script or AWB run or whatever it is, because if you actually go to the originating page where these "broken" headings appears, the ToC there actually works perfectly fine. See for example February 9#Use of of this one. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 10:00, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, the discussion Wavelength linked to indicates that the problem with the bot has already been fixed, so this is a non-issue. — Emil J. 12:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The solution was to uncover the unique and rare word JAWS, and then search it over the entire WT namespace. JAWS prefix:Wikipedia Talk: found the conversation I sought in WT:Accessibility#Section headings and JAWS. Our phrase "Section names should not normally contain links" has always been correctly worded this way.

Resolved

– JAWS prefix:Wikipedia Talk:

Thank you. — Cpiral Cpiral 17:20, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

bot request for wider discussion: Set page ranges within page parameter of citation templates to use en-dashes

Please see Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/RjwilmsiBot: Set page ranges within page parameter of citation templates to use en-dashes. Thanks Rjwilmsi 18:36, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Is this conjuction or disjunction?

Professional cycling teams are named after their chief sponsors, and many teams have two different companies as co-sponsors forming their name. For years, those of us working on articles in this sport quite happily, and without ever doubting the process, separated these with a hyphen, following the example of the main cycling media. For example, the Belgian team co-funded by an anti-snoring product (yes, really) and the national lottery of that country had its article at Silence-Lotto (hyphenated). However, when one of the cycling lists was proposed for featured list status, a reviewer suggested that "team names with hyphens, since they show disjunction between sponsor names, should use en-dashes instead of hyphens. The team articles should actually be moved to correspond with this change". Various contributors to WP:CYC, with commendable, but perhaps unquestioning, obedience, have since moved the example article to Silence–Lotto (with an endash), and done similarly with other dual-sponsored teams. However, it seems to me that this would be an example of conjunction, not disjunction, and so that hyphens are more appropriate. Silence and Lotto are in partnership, not opposition; two separate entities have established links that form a new, third, entity, which has a single, compound, name. So: Silence-Lotto, or Silence–Lotto? Kevin McE (talk) 19:02, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think which sort of logical connective this is should be relevant. It's a combination of the names of multiple independent entities; therefore, it should be an en-dash. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:51, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

And it would have undoubtedly been an endash when the discussion between those two entities were being reported, but there is now a third entity, is there not? It seems comparable to my mind to a double barrelled name: there was at some stage in the ancestry of this chef a Fearnley–Whittingstall marriage took place, resulting in Fearnley-Whittingstall offspring. Kevin McE (talk) 20:15, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

For names it's standard practice to use hyphen, e.g., McGraw-Hill and Merriam-Webster (which should know better than most companies about punctuation!) use hyphens in their names. I see that someone has mistakenly renamed Merriam-Webster to Merriam–Webster so it appears that this rule is not well-understood on Wikipedia. I reworded the MOS to try to clarify this. Eubulides (talk) 21:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Is it? I asked a while ago about Missouri–Kansas–Texas Railroad and was told that endashes are correct. --NE2 22:14, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, the argument for "Merriam-Webster" is quite strong, since that's how they spell their own name. The case for Missouri–Kansas–Texas Railroad is somewhat different, since it's a name that contains "Missouri–Kansas–Texas" as a component, and in this component endashes are the appropriate punctuation. Kevin McE's example of "a Fearnley–Whittingstall marriage" resulting in somebody named "Fearnley-Whittingstall" is a good one, as it illustrates the point that endashes emphasize that two disjoint notions are being brought together, whereas hyphens emphasize that there's one single result. Nowadays there are not two independent entities "Merriam" and "Webster", so the hyphen is appropriate in "Merriam-Webster". Getting back to your question about the MKT, the vast, vast majority of scholarly citations to the phrase (in Google Scholar) use hyphens; I found only one using endashes, and this suggests that hyphens would be more appropriate for the MKT. It would help to know what the MKT itself tended to use. Eubulides (talk) 00:44, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

The railroad is clearly a case of "to/from" locations: an en dash is required. Using an en dash for the marriage is possible, but many would consider it fussy. Yes, double-barrelled names are just the joining of two words, and by convention are hyphenated. Tony (talk) 01:28, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I gather that my edit was reverted because there was some worry that it would establish precedent for complicated names like Missouri–Kansas–Texas Railroad. I didn't want that: I wanted only to make the MoS's intent clearer. This intent is already in the MoS's next paragraph, which uses "Jones-Martinez" as an example of hyphenating a double-barreled name, but this wording obviously is not clear enough, and some clarification is needed. Eubulides (talk) 02:49, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

So Burlington – Rock Island Railroad and Pennsylvania–Reading Seashore Lines should be Burlington - Rock Island Railroad and Pennsylvania-Reading Seashore Lines? Gah. --NE2 03:53, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

No, that's not what the proposed change implies. The case where a component of a name is a to/from location is different from the normal case of a double-barreled name like McGraw-Hill or Merriam-Webster. Eubulides (talk) 04:07, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

These are joint ventures of two railroads named Burlington and Rock Island, and Pennsylvania and Reading, respectively. --NE2 04:14, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

While I can't say anything about the Burlington – Rock Island and am only passingly familiar with the Katy, I can say with certitude, as a NJ resident who's ridden the road's former main line, the PRSL certainly did NOT run from Pennsylvania to Reading (which is a city in Pennsylvania), and therefore I do not believe an endash was ever appropriate. It is, as best described above, the offspring of a joint venture of the two parent railroads. Therefore the Pennsylvania-Reading part of the name is actually a compound adjective to describe the joint owners of the lines, which ran to the (New Jersey) Seashore. The modern Atlantic City Line is the aformemtioned former main line, for those not in the know.)oknazevad (talk) 07:34, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, I got misled by those endashes. That is, the endash in "Pennsylvania–Reading Seashore Lines implies that it was a line from Pennsylvania to Reading (sorry, my knowledge of Pennsylvania geography is not that good), and the endash in "Burlington – Rock Island Railroad" implies that it was a line from Burlington to Rock Island. Assuming these were really mergers, then a hyphen would be more appropriate. (But no spaces around the hyphen.) I see in consulting Google Scholar and Google News that the unspaced hyphen is invariably used in other reliable sources when referring to these entities, so it would appear that it is an error to use an endash in those two examples. Eubulides (talk) 08:03, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Not quite mergers, but jointly-owned subsidiaries. If the hyphen is correct, you can fix it; I give up on trying to follow these rules. You might also want to look at 42nd Street – Port Authority Bus Terminal (IND Eighth Avenue Line), 47th–50th Streets – Rockefeller Center (IND Sixth Avenue Line), and many others. I'm going back to using the hyphen everywhere. --NE2 09:00, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks, I reinstalled the change. Eubulides (talk) 21:14, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

"Ah, sorry, I got misled by those endashes." Exactly why we've got to be careful in overusing them. Endashes describe particular types of relationships, which are different fro the ones described by hyphens. If a hyphen is correct, we shouldn't assume it's wrong and put in an endash, which has been happeneing lately.oknazevad (talk) 09:18, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the MKT itself usually called itself the Katy :) --NE2 04:22, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the mis-swap of hyphen to endash also applies to the railway lines of Moscow Metro. The lines are usually named in the "(one end)-(another end) line" format. However as the line extended from its termini or its original termini renamed, the line name remains unchanged in most case. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 04:27, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

No, not a mis-swap in this case. The "(Endpoint A)–(Endpoint B) Line" names are very much examples of the "from x to y" use of an endash. The extensions of some lines past those original endpoints doesn't change that the line still runs (and therefore a passanger can travel) from the one named station to the other. So endashes they should be. oknazevad (talk) 09:18, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Can I try to draw this back to my original question? There may be a legitimate question over naming of railways and other routes, but the function of the hyphen or dash in that instance carries an implication of "to" which is not the case when names (or names of companies) are combined, so that discussion needs to be initiated separately. Kevin McE (talk) 07:34, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the point of the following aside was to show that not all railroad names do carry the implication of "to". Which is true of the cycling teams mentioned in your original query. In the case of the cycling teams, as well as any joint venture where the venture is self-contained and self-operating, a hyphen should be used. Your offspring with a hyphenated surname analogy is dead on.

This is in contrast to a venture where two separate, fully independant companies each perform there own separate portions of the work, which are more akin to the type of inter-entity relations that use an en dash. So, I'd say the you'd be justified in restoring the hyphens to the cycling team articles, and pointing to this conversation as a reasonoknazevad (talk) 09:18, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the answer is that it's complicated enough that you should just use a hyphen and let others worry about its length. --NE2 09:01, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with both of the previous comments. It's complicated, and in this case hyphens are OK. Eubulides (talk) 21:14, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

NE2, no don't go around encouraging people to "just use a hyphen". Properly distinguishing en dashes and hyphens are important to the meaning and the readability of our text; the distinction is made by most of the hard-copy style guides. The use of en dashes improves WP's text. Let me know if you're confused by the rules and I'll help. PS En dashes are not hyphens with greater "length". That would be like describing a comma as a period with a curly thing hanging off it. Tony (talk) 03:08, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

So, in conclusion, is it correct for the Cycling project that the Silence–Lotto combination of sponsors produced the Silence-Lotto team, with a hyphen? --EdgeNavidad (talk) 11:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

And similarly for the more numerous auto racing articles (McLaren-Mercedes)? Of course it doesn't matter what we say here; a gazillion editors will continue to use hyphens without us ... Art LaPella (talk) 05:31, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Don't tell me what to do, pig :) I will use hyphens and encourage others to do so. --NE2 12:08, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I guess so. Sometimes a company itself has put entries on the internet with contrasting hyphen vs. en dash—it came up here with Noetica earlier in the year, but I can't remember its name. You just have to make a call when that happens. Tony (talk) 12:31, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Let's see whether I understand the stuff correctly:

Constructions such as "foo–bar baz" meaning "the baz from foo to bar", or "the baz between foo and bar", or "the baz relating foo to bar" use a dash.
Compounds, such as "singer-songwriter" which behaves for all intents and purposes as it were one word, use a hyphen.
Proper names are spelt whichever way they are spelt (including "Featherstonehaugh" which is pronounced /ˈfænʃɔː/ and not /ˈfɛðərstoʊnhɔː/, and "The McGraw-Hill Companies" which were founded by two guys McGraw and Hill and not by one named McGraw-Hill), no matter how illogical it is. [PS: Also, nowadays people say sentences such as "this book was published by McGraw-Hill", in which "McGraw-Hill" functions as one noun; this doesn't usually happen with "Fermi-Dirac" except maybe in extremely informal contexts, it's always "the Fermi–Dirac statistics". --___A. di M. 15:28, 6 December 2009 (UTC)]

Is this right? ___A. di M. 12:01, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Perfect; I might take a record of your example of foo–bar baz. Tony (talk) 12:31, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

One last question: when the hyphen is used, does it follow the same rules as the endash?

Example to make clear what I mean: the team that is sponsored by "Amica Chips" and "Knauf", is this "Amica Chips-Knauf" or "Amica Chips - Knauf"? I am 90% sure that it is the first one, but if we are going to change all the templates, we better change it to the right style at once...--EdgeNavidad (talk) 08:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Unspaced hyphen, as you correctly assumed. Apparently the below contributor, who forgot to sign, completely missed the point about the hyphen-vs-endash conversation above, as he puts an incorrect endash in his response. oknazevad (talk) 15:45, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

It uses normal spacing. "Amica Chips–Knauf". The question of spaced en-dashes versus flush em-dashes versus spaced em-dashes for a dash—a break in the flow of text—is entirely different and stylistic. (Personally I prefer unspaced em-dashes since that seems clearest and easiest to automatically search-and-replace to get a different one of those three styles.)

Quotations

"Preserve the original text, spelling, and punctuation"

Underneath, it claims that altering dashes could be acceptable. However, different dashes mean different things in the original text (just as commas and semi-colons mean different things), and many authors use different dashes within their own works. Standardization would be in direct violation of WP:V and WP:PLAGIARISM (as a quote must be preserved in its original format). I believe that the clause "Styling of dashes—use the style chosen for the article:" needs to be removed to conform to our policy and adequately represent the authorial intent. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:54, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

By the way, the Dash section mentions the two different ways to use the dashes and suggests that it is appropriate to use both types in an article. As such, it would be impossible to conform to "one" type of dash per that clause above. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:05, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Could you specify? I can't locate which bit you're referring to. Tony (talk) 12:33, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:MOSQUOTE for the quote guidelines. MOS:DASH for the dash guidelines. En dash states: "En dashes (–) have three distinct roles.". Em dash states: "Em dashes (—) indicate interruption in a sentence. They are used in two roles." If Wikipedia acknowledges these different roles, then that acknowledges that articles can use combinations of both in different ways. Third party publications already do. Thus, the MOSQUOTE statement to "conform" to the -one- type of dash format would go against the rest of the guideline (i.e. where Dash gives different dashes for different situations) and WP:V where we follow what a source uses. I am bringing this up because I was concerned that the clause in the statement would justify the automatic alteration of directly quoted material, which I have a problem with (it is one thing for a " to be changed to a ' but quite different to use different dashes especially when we explain on the guideline what the different meanings are). Ottava Rima (talk) 14:04, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

This is covered by the "Trivial spelling or typographical errors" comment later in the paragraph. It's quite common for sources to be poorly edited and to contain misspellings, hyphens where endashes would be appropriate, etc. Unless the misspellings and/or mispunctuations are important, it's standard practice to correct them (without "[sic]"), and there's nothing wrong with that. Furthermore, often a printed copy of a quotation differs from the original manuscript, or represents something that someone has said (and obviously one can't say an endash vs. a hyphen). So, it's often perfectly acceptable to turn hyphens to endashes in a quotation, to match Wikipedia style guidelines. Of course this should be done with care: in particular, if the original takes care to distinguish between hyphens and endashes, then our quotation normally should preserve that distinction. Eubulides (talk) 18:51, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Books published by the Clarendon press or likewise famous publishers cannot be dismissed as mere "poorly edited" works. WP:V makes it clear we should not be "correcting" our sources. WP:OR would reinforce that any "correction" is highly inappropriate. 19:49, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Either the distinction between en-dashes and hyphens is significant, or it's not. If it is significant, we shouldn't presumptuously try to improve the execution of what we infer to be the author's "true" intent by fiddling with his or her punctuation. If it's not important, then it doesn't matter, so why not leave it alone? —— Shakescene (talk) 21:44, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the Clarendon press is a good one and that we shouldn't be fiddling with its distinctions between hyphens and endashes. However, I disagree with the idea that we should always quote the source, mistakes and all, even when those mistakes are insignificant. That is not common practice in scholarship, and we shouldn't make it common here. WP:V does not at all prohibit the correction of insignificant typographical errors. Eubulides (talk) 21:50, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

But you can't have it both ways. If it's insignificant, why bother? And if it is significant, don't assume you can do better than the original publisher. If it's clear that a single hyphen is separating phrases rather than words, then you'd want to change that to an em-dash so the reader can see that phrases are being separated—rather than the immediately-adjacent words joined. But otherwise, we shouldn't (for example) be changing "New-York Times" to "New–York Times" (or vice-versa) in the Times’ own stories. —— Shakescene (talk) 22:14, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

If it's insignificant, then I don't want to bother the reader with the typo. The point is to help the reader, and to not distract the reader with the typo. Your example of replacing a hyphen with an emdash is a good one, but it's not the only such example. Eubulides (talk) 22:17, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Outdent - Eubulides - you are right to say it happens in scholarship. However, how are we to judge if those scholars did what was correct? Or what about scholars who "update" language? Many of the Milton pages have -his- spelling as preferred over the scholarly "corrected" version. I am sure some scholar came by, "fixed" all of the "typoes" and changed the punctuation. But we don't have the scholarly authority to back our own changes. I'm just concerned about edit wars that would result. How about a compromise - add "these can be viewed as non-controversial changes" and that would limit people forcing it one way or another. Would that be a fair way of dealing with it? Ottava Rima (talk) 22:40, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

It's good practice to stick to the original spelling and typography if there is a serious dispute about how the quote should be spelled or printed. But some judgment is required as to whether the dispute is serious. We can't insist on unanimity here, as that would mean any editor could veto the result. (Edit wars will happen no matter what the rules are, alas.) For example, if the original printed source says "Teſtament", it's OK to spell it "Testament" in the quote, unless there's something important and significant about that "ſ". Even if one pedantic editor ſhows up, we ſhould not ſhow all those eſses juſt as they were in the original, ſo long as there's reaſonable conſenſus that modern letters are apropos, and that inſiſting on the original typography would unneceſsarily diſtract the reader. After all, we are writing for the general audience, not for pedants. Eubulides (talk) 00:16, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I prefer that there be no unanimity, which is why I wanted to have the clause removed or have a "can" attached to it to ensure that people don't force an unanimity in an article. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

An example of text I would not want "corrected" (from Of Reformation#Tract): "refin'd to such a Spirituall height, and temper of purity, and knowledge of the Creator, that the body, with all the circumstances of time and place, were purif'd by the affections of the regenerat Soule, and nothing left impure, but sinne; Faith needing not the weak, and fallible office of the Senses, to be either the Ushers, or Interpreters, of heavenly Mysteries, save where our Lord himselfe in his Sacraments ordain'd." Then there are works like Edmund Spenser's that rely on spelling that are purposefully done in such a way. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

(after 2 edit conflicts) The styling of dashes is an important typographic convention, but it is not content. Double-hyphens were used in place of em-dashes on typewriters because typewriters did not have an em-dash key. Similarly, hyphens were used on typewriters both as hyphens and in place of en-dashes, again because typewriters did not have an en-dash key. Some people never gave up their typewriter habits. I know one professional publisher that still uses hyphens in place of en-dashes (but uses em-dashes properly). All publishers that I know of style dashes, quotation marks (straight or curly), italic usage (in place of typewriter-based underscore), and the like, even in quoted text, according to the publisher's own conventions for typographical consistency. That is also what the MOS prescribes. That is also what is prescribed in the strictest style guide that I know, the U.S. Government Printing Office's A Manual of Style. If Wikipedia, or any publisher, were to copy a direct quotation's typography, then we would have to use the soruce's font (if we could figure out what it is), double- versus single-spacing between sentences, line breaks, weird dashes, justification, leading between lines, and who knows what else. That's crazy. —Finell 00:40, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

A double hyphen is the equivalent of an em dash. But in many cases, an en dash is not the equivalent of an em dash. I would not want Wikipedians to override a distinction because they feel obligated to have only en or em dash in the whole article per the one clause. "All publishers that I know of style dashes" I know many, many publishers, especially academic publishers, that reprint the original format and will not change from the format, even if it goes against their house style. Clarendon, for example, is -very- good about this. And your slippery slop statement has nothing to do with this. There is no logical difference between a single and a double space, but there is clearly MoS stated differences between en and em dashes. Dashes have -meaning-, spaces do not. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

For some reason this discussion sems to be spinning around dashes, but there are other issues that Ottava disagrees with, exemplified by this edit, which altered the case of the first letter in a quotation. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

It also deals with spelling (see above with the Milton example). I couldn't find anything in the MoS about decapitalizing words in quotes so I didn't feel necessary to bring it up. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:40, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

"If an entire sentence is quoted in such a way that it becomes a grammatical part of the larger sentence, the first letter loses its capitalization: It turned out to be true that 'a penny saved is a penny earned'""."[6] --Malleus Fatuorum 02:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

A grammatical part would be a sentence that doesn't say something like ___ said, " or ___ wrote, ". The "quote" above is one that is not attributed or really seen as a quote. Key difference. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:56, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Not a key difference at all. If my landlady said "Gimme da rent now, or move out.", and that's all she said, a complete sentence, then "When my landlady told me 'gimme da rent now, or move out', I gave her the finger" is perfectly fine. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 19:33, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Belated interjection: That is not fine, in my opinion. What you have is a dialogue. The following is a correct solution: When my landlady said, "Gimme da rent now, or move out", I gave her the finger. On the other hand, if you are remarking on the words instead of the statement, it is not necessary to preserve the speaker's implicit, or a writer's explicit, capitalization: Expressions like "gimme da rent" were typical in my landlady's dialect.—Finell 19:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Finnell. That is a very clear way to explain it. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

That isn't what the passage says. It is distinguishing between quotes that are part of a sentence and quotes that are treated as entities unto itself. Integrating a quote in the above where "a penny saved is a penny earned" is not treated as a quote (i.e. someone else's speech) but a colloquialism. There is a major difference. Furthermore, "He said" is a full sentence (noun, verb) and "..." would also be its own sentence when you break it down grammatically. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

You're focusing too much on the specific penny example, which you personally (and not anyone else in the discussion, as far as I can tell) choose to interpret as a non-quotation aphorism, despite the fact that it's actually a quotation in this context. I chose my example carefully, as an actual quotation. The format and usage are the same, there just isn't any mistaking my example for an aphorism. If you just want to change the example to stop using an aphorism, I don't see any problem with that, since it is potentially confusing. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 21:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Let me provide another example from an article I just wrote and am submitting for publication - "'Fragments of shapes, hewn. In white silence: appealing. The best obtainable' (459-462). [...] though completely lifeless and unfeeling, as the 'the best obtainable'". You can see how in the quote it was capitalized as it was a quote. Later, when it is used as my own phrase it becomes formatted but yet has quotation marks to show that it is not really my own, just used as part of my own. That is the difference between the lines. It is not an "aphorism" in this example. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:36, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I see what you've written as perfectly appropriate. You've capitalized where you should, and not where you shouldn't, instead of always capitalizing regardless of grammaticality just because the quoted segment began a sentence in the original. Not sure what we're arguing about any longer. :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 09:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I am not saying to -always- capitalize the first letter in a speech. I want only the original capitalization to be preserved. It allows someone to know if you are starting the quote in mid sentence or not. It is just one of those tricks. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 21:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

If you start a quote in mid-sentence, and are using the quote as an entire phrase, you should be using an ellipsis anyway.

She said that she didn't like him, "... but I will talk to him anyway".

— Carl (CBM · talk) 02:55, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

That method has gone out of style and only remained in style for a very short time. The capitalization was proven to be a standard way to deal with it. People tend not to enjoy having to add many unnecessary characters, especially publishers who try to keep to a condensed format. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:40, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

← Have you read the Chicago Manual's advice on this? Sections 11.63ff describe their "rigorous method" for quotations, which is presumably what you would want if you are arguing about the possibility of people misunderstanding quotations. On the other hand, section 11.16 covers the less-than-rigorous default method for deciding whether to capitalize initial letters of run-in sentences. It says,

"When a quotation is used as a syntactical part of a sentence, it begins with a lowercase letter even if the original is a complete sentence or a fragment of poetry beginning with a capital. ... When the quotation has a more remote syntactic relation to the rest of the sentence, the initial letter remains capitalized."

As you can see, that sort of advice would not give anyone a firm criterion for deciding, based on the case of the initial letter alone, whether a run-in quotation was an entire sentence in the original. If you are worried someone will misunderstand, the only way to signal unequivocally that something has started in mid-sentence is to use an ellipsis. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:58, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no reason for ellipses points either at the beginning or the end of a direct quotation, since nothing is omitted from what you are quoting, and it is obvious that you are not quoting the entire book, article, or whatever. That is, ellipses at the beginning or end of a quote convey no information.—Finell 03:26, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

See sections 11.63 and 11.65 of the Chicago Manual. I am not saying that particular style guide is the best or only one; it's the only one I have access to from my computer. I think that looking at what actual style manuals say on the issue, rather than simply passing along my own opinion, seems to be slightly more scientific.

Ellipsis points at the beginnings and ends of sentences do convey information. They allow one to tell when a quoted sentence is not an entire sentence in the original. Compare

She said, "I want to take a walk".

She said, "I want to talk a walk ...".

She said, "Walter can go the the pond".

She said, "... Walter can go to the pond".

The ellipses in the second and fourth are the only way one could tell that the quoted material was not an entire sentence in the original.

My impression is that our MOS follows something akin to the "three dot method" in the Chicago Manual, which omits leading and trailing ellipses. This is fine and well, except that the manual makes it clear that that method is not the one to use if you are particularly worried about the possibility of people misreading the original source in the quotes. The manual has two other methods, culminating in their "rigorous" method, that are more strict about changes to the original and which are less likely to cause errors. The rigorous method does require ellipses in the two sentences above (sec 11.65).

If we have specifically chosen the least-strict method of quotations here, then we should simply point that out to people when they worry about things like the capitalization of the first word of a run-in quote. Styles such as the "three-dot" style simply do not care about preserving that capitalization; these styles are not intended to preserve every aspect of the original.

On the other hand, if someone is worried about that capitalization, the right solution would be to move to a more rigorous quotation style, which is what I suggested above. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:24, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Ellipses at the end have been replaced by putting the period outside of the quotation mark. It may be more of a problem when you have parenthetical citations instead of footnotes. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:55, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I have the feeling you are not actually reading my posts. The settings in which one slavishly preserves original capitalization (or marks changes with square brackets "[l]ike this") are exactly the sorts of situations where one is also fastidious about ellipses (the so-called "rigorous method"). In the more-common laid-back style where one omits ellipses, one also freely changes the capitalization of the first letter of quotations. On the subject of placing periods inside or outside quotation marks, could you explain how to use the location of the period to determine whether the following phrase was an entire sentence in the original text: "I read the manual of style." — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:00, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Not true at all. As I stated, ellipses at the end were replaced with another method to show the same thing. The "ellipses" became silly when you would end your sentence with a quote that was a fragment, thus making all sorts of weird grammar. It also was unwieldy for publishers. Grammar is about representation. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:31, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Isn't capitalization a related to the beginning of the quoted material rather than the end? If you are arguing that capitalization should be used to infer that the quote here is not a sentence in the original:

Her sign said she was "gone to the races."

How would you make a similar determination, without an ellipsis, for

She wrote, "I liked the Beatles."

Ellipses at the end of a quote are not really relevant here. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:44, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Section names should not normally contain trademarked products

An Article's structure determines its future growth, how additions are made to it. Currently, I face the danger of "product-ized" section headings. See the links below, (shall we?):

Talk:Operating system#Devoting an entire section to each notable OS (and similarly at three out of four discussions after that one) and additionally (arg!) at
Talk:File system#Structure of this article.
Talk:Computer_network#Considering_our_manual_of_style

Only the informed need reply.

The links speak of prioritizing teaching thusly: key terms, key concepts, practices, and then products when appropriate. The links also show how we would undo past practice if I am right. I need input.

Concerning the "shelving" (the structure) of regular articles' sections, although sections named after products and trademards look good when the article is young and ignorant, they mature poorly when you get them home later. To be fair we let notable products and trademarks have free floating articles, but as a matter of my book of facts, no mention in sections. To be fair to future editors, like myself, should not this notion of future growth get a mention in WP:MOS now? Or should we have notability drives, policing the "only four slots" allowed for the most notable products to fit? Or is the future size of articles a non-issue? I ask you. — Cpiral Cpiral 01:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Since I was one of the original complainers (though I hadn't thought of it as a style issue at the time), I had to think about your question to at least try to frame it in terms my brain could understand. I most certainly do not have the ultimate answer, but instead went looking for an example far outside the scope we are talking about. My brain (which I note is no longer under warranty), came up with the example article "Banana". Where, exactly, does a product like Dole fit? Answer: One wikilinked mention in section four, Trade. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 04:43, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

That's the way it should be done. Dole is the last thing non-traders (most people) need to learn about bananas. There are many good examples of technical articles similar to operating system that have avoided the cancer of irrelevance, and the drama of the spammer or troll. Let's see, uh... File system? No. Kernel? No. Word processor Yes. Spreadsheet No. Uh... Mmmm... beer. Yes. — Cpiral Cpiral 08:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't see this as a major issue. Articles can shrink if necessary. If the prominence of a given brand wanes, the article can be adjusted accordingly. Mandating "no trademarks in headers" is an unnecessary restriction. In most cases, it will not be natural to organize an article that way. In some cases, it might be. Discussion on a talk page should resolve any conflict about it. (John User:Jwy talk) 19:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Shrink? You mean cleanup? They grow easily, like a baby. It's a major work to clean them up, like some adults. The phrase I propose is "Section names should not normally contain trademarked products" is as light and subtle and unread and disregarded and useful as it's sister phrase "Section names should not normally contain links". Its a rule to ignore, but there from skilled, experienced analysis. — Cpiral Cpiral 00:14, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

It takes work to intelligently grow OR shrink an article. And more than just the brand names are going to change over time - banishing all such things from the headings is not worth the work. Basically, I am not convinced it makes sense to have such a rule. (John User:Jwy talk) 01:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Worth noting, too, that a lot more terms are trademarked than many people realise. For example, The Simpsons is a registered trademark of 20th Century Fox Film Corp., Tablet PC is a registered trademark of Microsoft Corporation. Thus, imposing a blanket ban could cause significantly more problems than might be expected. Barnabypage (talk) 21:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

OK then let's say "not normally use", but do you get the amount of work it would take to clean an article up? Do you want to leave a mess to the next generation? — Cpiral Cpiral 00:14, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that a blanket ban is a very bad idea. Not only do we risk opening a can of worms as Barnaby mentions, in many cases when writing about a company, it is only appropriate for it's notable products (which are most cerainly trademarked) to be used as section headers.

Also, I disagree with the initial assertion that an article's structure determines future growth. I've completely overhauled articles in my day, and I've seen others so overhauled. It's a false assertion.oknazevad (talk) 21:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

How about a pillow ban? And who bans banners from banning product names from section banners? It's just the phrase "not normally use". The biggest effort is saving all information, making sure they are preserved somewhere. I've had to spend many (happy?) hours rewriting the information into other articles to make room for some missing facts our "operating systems" now leaves out of teaching about operating systems. (It's B-class.) — Cpiral Cpiral 00:14, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I think there is definitely an issue, I'm just not convinced it is a style issue. I think content and structure are better addressed other places than in the MOS. For example, if I understand correctly, WP:WikiProject Films has content and structure guidelines for movie articles. To me, the Project level seems like it may be the best place to address these issues. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 06:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Syntax/grammar = structure/style = WP:Layout/WP:MOS = subject/content. Where do section titling recommendations go? They are here, MOS. WP Layout has section-naming guidelines for appendices. I'm trying to make the general case here Aladin, not just technology-articles or just wikiprojects, but Wikipedia.

Sections themselves are the architectonics of an article, a sort of syntax for the entire articulation. But section titles also convey content. They imply content. They should not have actual wikt:factoids. Factoids, like product names, are facts that change quickly. Sections layout subject matter. Sections imply content, but should not contain any content if that content is subject to change. Sections divide subject matter, and products are just content. So don't use product names as subject matter headings, use them as factoids. Say how <product name> relates <subject>. Don't say <subject> is <product name>, unless it is an article about the product.

Wikipedia should only name the structures—portals, categories and section names—in a way so that all the unchanging facts and all notable opinions in the world fit comfortably and sustainably here in structure. When this state arises, we only change factoids. We add history. Wikipedia's work now is more structural, and I'm proposing some.

Changing section titles "later" could be dangerous because it might deadens links. On a completely organized Wikipedia, articles will link, more often than not, to specific sections of other articles. None of the 50 or so samples I checked of the 900 links I surveyed for in a what-links-here list for operating system (OS) article linked to an OS subsection. This implies that what dominates the motives of the other articles editor's linking to OS is that they just want the lead info, or that OS has no well defined structure, or that the wiki is still becoming organized from a nebulous state. Waiting until later to remove product names from subsection names is rude because it forces one to act to contain the size of the article when some notable product suddenly, and seemingly quite appropriately, lines up it's own subsection with the other products because that is the way the article was designed because MOS had narry a warning. Notability does not directly pertain to the content of articles, structure does.

If having product names in subsection names might promote higher vandalism, spam, and WP:COI rates, then leaving products more embedded and hidden in the text would shrink targets and temptations. Structures are for branches, not leaves. (If getting toolserver accounts worked, (it doesn't), I would do a query to try and support this.)

Setting up future work, putting off 'til the 'morrow what can be done today, is sometimes prudent, but in this case it's system-blindness. Each change of a section title in the more organized future may deaden many more links on other pages than it does now. A WP:Wikignome would say "We don't need the 'what links here' niche". I say we eliminate that work of the future by warning new editors now about how the system works, how an outline's component-naming has a permanent effect on growth of content, from zero to <size of article> and beyond. Who'd o'thunk?

— Cpiral Cpiral 00:13, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Please see the three essay-like discussions I link to at the top of this discussion. (I just added the third one.) — Cpiral Cpiral 23:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Question about section "9.Geographical items"

Could someone please clarify what the context of the section on Geographical items? It says "Places should generally be referred to consistently using the same name as in the title of their article". Does that mean this section is giving a guideline ONLY for articles that are about places? In other words, is it a guideline on the use of the name "Chicago" only for the article about Chicago or ALL uses of Chicago in all articles? Thanks. BashBrannigan (talk) 03:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

As I understand your question, the two options can be expressed in the following potential guidelines;

(By the way, I have revised the dangling participle "using".)

Option 1. "In an article about a place, the place should generally be referred to consistently by the use of the same name as in the title of its article."

Option 2. "In an article about a place and in all other articles, the place should generally be referred to consistently by the use of the same name as in the title of the article about the place."

-- Wavelength (talk) 03:58, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The way Ive always read the guideline is the second option Wavelength mentions. It's more than a style issue, as place names are one of those things that can be quite subject to POV (if you hadn't noticed!) By being consistant throughout the project, we not only create a better looking encyclopedia, but also avoid POV-pushing in more-obscure corners of it by those with an agenda. oknazevad (talk) 16:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

In non-geographical articles attached to a place, particularly in historical ones, there are just too many legitimately-debatable exceptions to make more than a general guide useful, so I'd go with Option 1. Otherwise you'd have to use Istanbul for all references to Constantinople and Byzantium. It's certainly important to clarify any possible ambiguities in a reader's mind (he or she may not know that an article about Byzantium is referring to the same physical location as today's Istanbul), but what fits best is really a matter for an article's editors to discuss. While one doesn't want a first reference to "American" or "British" because of the ambiguity, subsequent references shouldn't be limited to "U.S." and "UK". And many references to Ireland need a great deal of specificity which wouldn't necessarily match the geographical article about either the island or the republic (e.g. Erin, Éire, Southern Ireland, Irish Free State). That's just as true for Palestine, although not quite so true for Korea. References to the Dutch East Indies, Netherlands New Guinea, the Persian Empire, Siam, Malaya (now most often West Malaysia), Bombay, Calcutta, Madras, Nanking, the Gold Coast and Southern Rhodesia need to indicate their modern locations, but you shouldn't force uniform, politically-correct, confusing and anachronistic references to the Empire of Istanbul, Anna and the King of Thailand, the Black Hole of Kolkata or the Rape of Nanjing. Like most of us, I dearly want to avoid nationalist edit-warring, but I'm afraid putting such a rule in the Manual of Style isn't the solution.

However, every article mentioning a less-common name for a place should also give the name of the main article about that place. In the middle of a long list, a WP:piped link might be sufficient, although editors should remember how many readers will have neither the pop-ups nor the status bar that would let them see what's piped without opening the whole page. Otherwise indicate the article's main name. E.g., "The original British Commonwealth of Nations comprised the United Kingdom, the Irish Free State (now the Irish Republic), Canada, Australia, ..." —— Shakescene (talk) 06:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

You make a fair point about historical uses, but I wasn't interpreting the guideline in those terms. The way I read it was as applying to modern locations only. Indeed, one of the most common forms of POV-pushing I've seen over the years is to use an historical name instead of the correct current one. That said, in many cases, though not all, historical names and entities actually have separate articles linked through a series of succession boxes. To go back to your first example, there are separate articles on Constantinople and Istanbul. The former focuses on the city before the Turkish conquest, and would be an appropriate link in any article covering that era. Indeed, in such a case, that would be the appropriate "main article" title to use per the guideline. Maybe the guideline should include a clause about appropriateness for the time period covered in the article. oknazevad (talk) 14:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I did a Wikipedia search for "renamed places" and I selected the following from the first 200 results.

From two of those results, I also found the following.

(Apparently, some of those lists remain to be categorized in one or the other of those categories.)

-- Wavelength (talk) 18:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I have just reverted the changes to the en-dash section that had replaced the simple rule about spacing with gobbledy. Tony (talk) 12:23, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Names with lower case prefixes at the start of sentences

The article Helena, comtesse de Noailles refers to "de Noailles" even at the beginning of a sentence. Surely the prefix "de" should be capitalized when it comes at the start of a sentence? Gatoclass (talk) 10:25, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't think so.—Anonymous Dissident^Talk 12:37, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

No, you don't think it should be capitalized? I don't recall ever reading anything where the "de" wasn't capitalized when starting a sentence, just as "von" is capitalized when starting a sentence with a German name, but I'd like to hear some other opinions. Gatoclass (talk) 12:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I think that this may help. ISD (talk) 13:08, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't seem to address the question at all as far as I can tell. Gatoclass (talk) 13:15, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

It definitely should be capitalized, just like any other word at the beginning of a sentence. — Emil J. 13:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I have little experience with non-English names with prepositions in them, but my impulse is to capitalize it as we would any other preposition. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:19, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

My experience is limited to Afrikaans names such as du Toit, de Klerk, van Reenen, etc. where the standard practice is to capitalise the prefix if it starts a sentence. I believe (but don't have a citable source) that the same is true of most other West Germanic languages such as German, Dutch, etc. so I don't see any reason not to do so in English. Roger (talk) 14:39, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

But surely "de Noailles" is French, not Germanic? ISD (talk) 14:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

In French it's exactly the same. French has had a tremendous influence on German, especially in this area. (There used to be lots of tiny German states, with courts where it was posh to speak French.) Hans Adler 14:55, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

The AP Stylebook says:

Capitalize the particles only when the last name starts a sentence: De Gaulle spoke to von Richthofen.

Hans Adler 14:55, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think that answers that. I'll make the changes. ISD (talk) 15:27, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

That's why I never want to start a sentence with my surname. (I'm one of the very, very few Italians with a surname beginning with a lowercase preposition.) In the rare cases I can't avoid to do that, I use ALL-CAPS. --___A. di M. 20:47, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

An important related point: starting a sentence includes other things that are capitalized for the same reason; namely, article titles and section headings. So for example the articles on the von Neumann hierarchy and the de Rham cohomology must absolutely not not not use the {{lowercase}} or {{wrongtitle}} templates. I think this should be specified here. Di M., I have to say I don't understand why you don't want to start a sentence with your surname; to me it's completely clear what to do in that case, which is to capitalize the di. Just as you would in any Italian sentence starting with the word di. --Trovatore (talk) 20:57, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps he doesn't want people to think that his first name is an abbreviation of "Diana"? Hans Adler 21:22, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Of course the only meaningful thing to do at the beginning of a sentence would be writing "Di M.", as Trovatore said; but the reason why I don't want to do that definitely isn't what Hans Adler said: nobody would think "Di" is a first name (except Chinese people^*). If I really needed to rationalize this dislike of mine, I'd say I don't want people to think that my surname begins with a capital D (which wouldn't be an unlikely assumption, as surnames starting with a capitalized preposition are much more common than ones starting with a lower-case preposition in Italy—perhaps by one order of magnitude or two). But as with most forced rationalizations of likes and dislikes, it is ridiculous: for example, I would never (or hardly ever) specify "di M., with a small dee" if asked for my last name in a non-written context.

* No kidding: I remember a Chinese gal referring to Alessandro Del Piero as "Piero", and when I told her he's Del Piero not Piero, she answered that in China they usually referred to people by the family name alone. --___A. di M. 19:56, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Section management: proposed clarification

Came across this and found it confusing to read, and in fact two separate points are being made. I propose replacing

When referring to a section without linking, italicize the section name (italicize the actual section name only if it otherwise requires italics, such as the title of a book); for example, === Section management === but the current section is called Section management.

with

Do not use italics within section names unless the words otherwise require it. For example, === Geography of the Odyssey ===
When referring to a section without linking, italicize the section name. For example, the current section is called Section management.

PL290 (talk) 09:07, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

It tries to idiot proof Italicize section titles (but not if they are section titles.) Keep the parenthetical here, and move the other bullet to Italics. — Cpiral Cpiral 19:06, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Common name in article title versus name in lede

WP:COMMONNAME notes e.g. that the article on the former wrestler Hulk Hogan should be titled that, which it is, although the lede reads "Terry Gene Bollea (born August 11, 1953), better known by his ring name Hulk Hogan." Is it part of the MoS to use their legal name when known at the start of the lede? Boris Karloff begins "Boris Karloff (November 23, 1887 - February 2, 1969) was a British actor who emigrated to Canada in the 1910s." His real name is identified in the infobox and at the start of the first paragraph after the lede. I think it makes more sense to begin the article with the common name as in the Karloff article when the common name is very different from the legal one. If the legal name is similar to the common name, as with Bill Clinton, using the legal name makes sense. How do other encyclopedias handle this? How should Wikipedia? Шизомби (talk) 04:27, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The closest thing I've found to a rule about this is in WP:SURNAME. However, I think it is just good practice to give the subject's full, legal name right in the opening line. People come to encyclopedia articles to learn the basics about those articles' subjects, and the name is as basic as it gets. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:03, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Often, you're not very interested in the subject's dates or full legal name at birth, but the latter is something you expect to find very near the beginning of an article, if not in the first sentence, then in the second or third. For one thing you may not have known that the common name (e.g. Harry Houdini) is different from the name at birth. —— Shakescene (talk) 15:07, 14 December 2009 (UTC) ¶ And for another thing, the lead paragraph—and not the information box—is often all that gets reprinted or translated, so if the full birth name isn't there, it won't appear at all. That name (e.g. Charles Dodgson as a mathematician) is sometimes necessary for searches and cross-reference. —— Shakescene (talk) 15:10, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

With regard to very different stage names or legal names adopted later in life, I agree it makes sense to have it in the text of the article and not confine it solely to an infobox. I'm not convinced it necessarily belongs in the lede, and definitely not convinced it belongs in the first sentence, and absolutely not convinced it should begin the first sentence. Cary Grant for example was known for most of his life by that name, and for most of the period of his life whereby he is notable. His actual name, while important to record, is more in the nature of trivia. Compare how placenames are handled: it's Istanbul (not Constantinople). Been a long time gone, Constantinople. Likewise, we don't say "Paumanok, better known as Long Island." Шизомби (talk) 17:39, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

That's it, then. I don't see a person's real name/birth name/original name as trivial. It speaks to that person's family, origins and upbringing. The former names of places are in a different category, even if old New York was once New Amsterdam and people just liked it better that way. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:52, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying it's irrelevant or unimportant.; it does have useful information regarding their past. However, for someone like Grant or Hogan or Karloff, it is relatively obscure information that literally may be used in a trivia book or game. And there's several types of name changes to consider: birthname>new name due to adoption, birthname>nickname (which as I mentioned above, I'd subdivide into similar and substantially different), birthname>stagename, birthname>legally changed name, birthname>married name and so on. In the last case, and I don't know if the practice is universal across all such articles, there's Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton. Probably her name was legally changed to that when married, though some women may informally adopt a new surname without doing so legally. But in any case, it's not given as Hillary Diane Rodham, now Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton, though as with her husband's nickname vs. legal name, the current name is substantially the same. Or look at Gerald Rudolph Ford, Jr. (born Leslie Lynch King, Jr.; July 14, 1913 – December 26, 2006) or at Bill Clinton again "William Jefferson "Bill" Clinton (born William Jefferson Blythe III, August 19, 1946)." The current legal name leads (though the nickname there is incorporated into the legal one), and the birthname follows. Шизомби (talk) 05:22, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps more to the point, what name did the subject choose to be known by? With the exception of fugitives from the law (whose choice is somewhat coerced) or from harsher forms of "justice" that choice should be respected so far as reasonably possible in selecting the article title. Marion Morrison, anyone? Richard Starkey? Follow up with the birthname where it is verifiable by reliable sources as public information and it is not harmful to do so. LeadSongDog come howl 18:18, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

If it's a case where the individual chooses to be known by a single name, then I agree with using that name in the lead. That's the case with Madonna; it's being discussed right now with Lady Gaga. That said, if there's a case where an individual has used multiple names, like Prince Rogers Nelson, then it makes sense to open the lead with his birth name and spell out the multiple stage names following. —C.Fred (talk) 18:39, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Colours is no longer marked as part of the Manual of Style

Request

Can sb add {{Style wide}}, thanks. --75.154.186.99 (talk) 00:16, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I read the docs for the template {{Style wide}}. The docs say, rather blatantly, to do as you ask. Can't help wondering if there is more to the story. —Aladdin Sane (talk)

The MOS is semiprotected, so this guy or gal couldn't do that directly. ― A. di M. — 2nd Great Wikipedia Dramaout 21:55, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

General problem of technical problems

The discussion above rings up a topic: If a future technical problem like this comes up and after looking into it it takes a long time to fix, the MOS will have to be changed so it doesn't discourage people from writing in ways that cause technical problems. Hopefully, this won't ever happen, but it could and "looks good/correct style vs. don'tbreakit" should come down in favor of "don'tbreakit." I assume by the discussion above that fixing sortable wikitables is something that can be done in a matter of hours or days, not months or years. Is this correct? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 15:37, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I am very, very reluctant to endorse compromises in the MoS. The compromise may be there for only a month, but people will remember it for years. In the case of sortable wikitables, yes, there seems to be a simple fix. In other situations? Myself, I'm quite tempted to come down on the side of correct style. For instance, at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 110#Reword to prefer minus-key on numeric keypad there was a proposal to replace all minus signs with hyphens so that it would be possible to search for negative numbers in web browsers. It failed: The consensus was that we should not let minor technical difficulties force glaring style errors. Ozob (talk) 16:40, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

We should encourage users to use correct English (Spanish, Japanese, etc.) at all times excepting those when clear and significant problems would occur, not pet peeves that people are dressing up as technical problems. So I'm in favor of "correct style." ("Looks good" is irrelevant.) Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:05, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm inclined towards what Ozob says: you get the style/formatting right, then the technical stuff follows suit. Experience tells me that style should not play hand-maiden to the whims of developers (sorry if I'm treading on anyone's toes, but software development really is there to serve the community, like the MoS). Having said that, clearly if there are realy serious issues involved, there needs to be communication about it first. But the reverse sorting of minus values in a table when you hit the sort button for that column: that is not serious enough, IMO. Tony (talk) 15:31, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

First-person pronouns

It is however acceptable to use we in historical articles to mean the modern world as a whole, as in "The text of De re publica has come down to us with substantial sections missing".

At user talk:Jezhotwells I mentioned the editorial "we" in mathematical writing, which is a figure of speech that could not possibly be taken literally. It seems perfectly obvious to me that this should come under the same exception. I'm finding at least one person not eager to accept this. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:09, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Said person seems to be sorely confused. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 23:09, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Was there a reason for so blithely insulting your fellow editors without even seeing the rest of the context of Hardy's complaint? Jezhotwells may well be confused but he's not who Hardy seemed to be referring to by "at least one person", and there are legitimate reasons for avoiding the editorial we here. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:31, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I said "seems" for a reason. I have not asserted that Hardy's interpretation of the other party's (your?) views is correct. If it is correct, then I think the other party is in fact confused, because the "mathematical 'we'", if you will, is certainly an instance of what we've been calling the editorial "we". No offense intended really, but I call them as I see them. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 10:05, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposed clarification and emendation

I propose adding a new provision to the first-person pronouns section concerning the standard 'editorial "we" ' found in writing in the mathematical sciences, perhaps also with some general statements about figures of speech not meant literally. One example of the latter says that an ancient text has come down to us with sections missing.

Wikipedia has tens of thousands of articles on various aspects of the mathematical sciences, and few if any Wikipedians have more experience editing these than I do. I've worked on these daily for more than seven years. For that matter, few people have done more edits on Wikipedia article than I have. I am Wikipedia's foremost advocate of adherence to standard Wikipedia conventions in articles on all aspects of the mathematical sciences.

On various occasions over the years, I've found templates on some mathematics articles saying they're written like a personal reflection or essay, and the only time I understood one of them was three or four months ago, when someone said in an edit summary that the use of the word "we" in the middle of the article was the reason for the tag. It was incredibly silly: a minor rephrasing could avoid the word "we" without changing the meaning, and it was very obviously not intended literally, but was an instance of the standard 'editorial "we" '. Very recently I asked someone who had tagged some mathematics articles as seeming like "an essay or personal reflection" to say on what grounds that was done. It was surprisingly difficult to get him or her (?) to answer that question, and similarly for one other person whom I asked about similar conduct. Wikipedia is supposed to have a certain collegiality and I wonder where that was. The reluctant replies—the parts of them that were specific—were all about cases of the editorial "we". It's just as if the figures of speech using that pronoun had been intended literallly! I don't know how that could happen; it's weird. An example from Gödel's incompleteness theorems:

Throughout the proof we assume a formal system is fixed and satisfies the necessary hypotheses.

When the words "we assume" are used in theorem or a proof, they usually mean that the conclusions that follow are valid in those cases in which the stated assumption is true. Can anyone imagine the word "we" being meant literally here? I'm inclined to say if anyone thinks that, then they didn't read the whole sentence and are not paying attention.

Paul Halmos was an authority on expository writing in the mathematical sciences, and at one point in his writings (I'll see if I can find it.....) advised writers on how to use the editorial "we"; not on whether to use it.

In all of the examples I've recently discussed, I would never in a million years have guessed that anyone would construe the editorial "we" as anything but a standard figure of speech or that that could have been a reason to perceive the article as resembling a personal reflection. I realized it only when it was reluctantly pointed out to me, and I don't understand the relucatance either. Having had it pointed out to me, I can only say that anyone who thought it was meant literally rather than as a standard somewhat technical figure of speech must not have been paying attention; it's not easy to wrap my brain around the idea that someone could think it was meant literally. Michael Hardy (talk) 23:33, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I see nobody arguing that this usage should be interpreted literally. Can we avoid strawman arguments, please? The example in WP:MOS#First-person pronouns that Jezhotwells pointed you to as something to be avoided is clearly an example of the editorial we, and the MOS cleatly and unambiguously states that that usage should be avoided. So let's not pretend that the MOS only applies to literal usages of first person; it doesn't. We can argue whether that should be changed, but my guess is that it would be a difficult change to gain consensus for, and I see no particular reason why mathematical writing should be any different than other writing in this respect; editorial we is hardly a usage confined to mathematics. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:45, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Jezhotwells did say that that usage justifies calling something a "personal reflection or essay". Why would it justify that if the usage is clearly not intended literally? Would you really maintain that the phrase "Throughout the proof we assume a formal system is fixed" is objectionable for the same reasons that seem to motivate the general prohibition of first-person pronouns? What about "This ancient work has not come down to us intact?" Is it ONLY when talking about intactness of ancient manuscripts that the exception applies? I would take it to apply whenever the same reasons are applicable. The reason I wanted to mention the editorial "we" separately is that apparently some otherwise intelligent readers have failed to understand that that's another such case. Michael Hardy (talk) 01:08, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you that the editorial we does not justify {{essay-like}}. I disagree with you that it is unproblematic. My own experience is that removing the editorial we improves exposition, both mine and others', and gives articles a more pleasing tone. If an article says, "By X's theorem, we see Y" and I really, really don't see it, then I feel somewhat offended. When I was a student, I sometimes wanted to tell an author, "No we don't see that! Explain what you're doing!" Now I realize that often the author doesn't know what he's doing. He knows or believes that the result is true, but is being too lazy or sloppy to write out or even figure out the details. I fight this very temptation myself now. I regard the editorial we as only slightly more honest than using the word "obvious". We accept it only because we accept things that fall short of brilliant prose; there is no place for the editorial we in brilliant prose. Ozob (talk) 04:00, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

There are certainly SOME cases where replacing the editorial "we" with other locutions leaves the article at least as good as or better than it was. But that's no reason to tag an article as if the expression were meant literally and expect others to guess that among all the things in the article that you might have misunderstood, that was the one. Michael Hardy (talk) 07:47, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

If I may butt in to respond to Eppstein on a somewhat earlier point: When Hardy says "I'm inclined to say if anyone thinks that [the mathematical 'we' was meant literally], then they didn't read the whole sentence and are not paying attention", this is exactly what I meant by my comment above (which upset you) that such a someone must be sorely confused. In neither case is it a goading personal attack, just an honest assessment of the clarity of reception and interpretation of the communication in question. I have to agree with Hardy (I think twice in one day is unheard of with us two :-) that the criticism of literal interpretation is not a straw man, as you suggest it is, because the cleanup/dispute tagging and other complaints so far about the mathematical "we" do, to my third-party and non-mathematician eyes also, seem to require an over-literal interpretation in order to be applied. Other complaints could be made (e.g., that the practice is too pedagogically twee and smarmy for encyclopedic writing – the reason I avoid using such constructions in articles, but sometimes do it on purpose on talk pages >;-), but Hardy's been responding to the arguments presented. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 10:05, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion regarding articles with multiple portals

I have a suggestion for articles with multiple portals. There are a lot of articles with multiple portals and frequently if the content for the article is still in need of developement the portals can overlap sections and make the article look sloppy such as in Charles Hamlin. This is also true of different monitor settings. What I recommend is adding the portals to a box such as I have done to John G. B. Adams. This will allow the portals to display in a much cleaner manner while reducing the need for templates like "clear" to get things to line up just right. I am requesing comments from anyone and everyone so as to gather a consensus about whether this should, could be implemented wikipedia wide. --Kumioko (talk) 02:42, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Another possibility is to use a portalbox template such as the one used in Smedley Butler. --Kumioko (talk) 02:49, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Quotations

MOS:QUOTE says "Preserve the original text, spelling, and punctuation. ... Trivial spelling or typographical errors should be silently corrected ...". You couldn't have meant to fix trivial misspellings but not important misspellings; what's the difference? So this is a contradiction. Perhaps you meant to preserve spelling and punctuation of something historic; you wouldn't rewrite Shakespeare, for instance, to conform to modern rules. Art LaPella (talk) 05:07, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it does mean to fix the small spelling errors but not the big ones. It is rather vague and complicated to my mind, but the idea is that, say, a Wikipedia article quotes a person who was giving a speech out loud but the specific source is the text of a newspaper article, then any spelling errors can be assumed to have been the fault of the newspaper, not the original speaker. This would be one kind of "trivial" misspelling. However, if the person who originally wrote the text is the one being quoted and, say, writes "glamor" instead of "glamour" in an article about American and British spelling differences, then the irony would make the error worth preserving with a [sic]. ("Glamour," unlike "harbor" and "labor," retains its u even in American spelling). Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:03, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

See Definitions of glamor - OneLook Dictionary Search. -- Wavelength (talk) 17:27, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Long since, Wavelength: [Scroll down to the usage note.]Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:28, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

MOS:QUOTE's examples of trivial misspellings are "correct ommission to omission, harasssment to harassment—unless the slip is textually important", as if "omission" and "harassment" are more trivial than other words, a distinction that's too profound for me. Art LaPella (talk) 17:54, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

To me, the threshold is meaning: If correcting a typo does not change the meaning it is OK as in "harasssment" -> "harassment", but as in Darkfrog24's example above, once the hint or scent of "meaning might be changed here" arises I slap it with a [sic] and go on with my life. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 18:38, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Usage of names in article content

Is there any established policy on the way to refer to people in article text? All I've found refers to article naming, but nothing explicitly states the way in which people should be referred to. I mean, going by common sense the criteria should be the same, but this user insists in listing celebrities by their real name (totally cryptic names no one would relate to) instead of their widely known names, and since I don't have any intentions of engaging in an argument with someone that won't go by common sense, I'd like to have something to provide fundament. Thanks in advance. --uKER (talk) 19:59, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

In a list or in prose? If a mention of Adam Nyerere Bahner were going to be made in the text of an article, I think it would be acceptable to refer to him directly as Tay Zonday. However, for purposes of the List of Internet phenomena, the format of listing the real name, if known, followed by their pseudonym is appropriate. Talk:List of Internet phenomena is a better venue to start that discussion, rather than coming straight here. —C.Fred (talk) 20:10, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Yep! WP:SURNAME. In general, in the article text, refer to the person by his or her last name alone. It even mentions celebrities specifically. It is okay to refer to Beyonce Knowles as "Knowles," but I personally would be fine with calling Madonna "Madonna." WP:Surname agrees. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:33, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

A side point I insist on in articles is that people who use a later-adopted name should be referred to by their birth name, after it has been introduced, in narration of their early life, until after the point in their story where they used the adopted name. I.e., it's really bizarre, silly, jarring and potentially badly user-confusing and misinformative to refer to someone like Prince or Slim Pickens by those names when discussing their early childhoods. No idea if this is written anywhere, but I'm rarely challenged on it when I make changes to enforce it in an article. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 04:05, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Point of fact, Prince is his real name. Just a bit of trivia.oknazevad (talk) 22:55, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I didn't realize. Use Marilyn Monroe as an example then. :-) – SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 10:19, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Advertising here

I see that an editor has included "2nd great Wikipedia dramaout" as an ad in his signature, now plastered all over this talk page if you didn't get it the first time.

Perhaps I should turn my sig into "Ignore the calls to strike". This drama-out thing conveys a message that working in policy, language and process areas is somehow undesirable. I disagree.

I call on editors to ignore this campaign. Tony (talk) 03:33, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Or make fun of it like I and someone else did at the campaign's sign-up page. SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 05:42, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

As you've probably heard, this page has at least an image problem. Example. Art LaPella (talk) 06:03, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't mind this one. Most of the discussions we have here aren't drama but some of them get heated. With the first dramaout, we all took a weekend break from the discussion about the ban on American punctuation. It was kind of nice, actually. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:23, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I've made the ad in the sig less obtrusive; HTH. ― A. di M.^{2nd Dramaout} 21:32, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

MOS discussion regarding Lady Gaga's name

There is a discussion occurring here as to whether the precedent of shortening Lady Gaga's name down to just "Gaga" violates WP:MOS. All users are welcome to contribute. WossOccurring (talk) 20:22, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

National varieties

This is not a very big deal, but the following struck me as a bit odd

"An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation uses the English of that nation. ... This avoids articles being written in a variety that is inappropriate for the great majority of its readers. For example, Australians reading the article Australian Defence Force or Americans reading American Civil War should not stumble over spellings or constructions not used in their own variety of English."

The assumption that "the great majority" of the readers of an article on a national topic will be citizens of that nation seems counter to the spirit of Wikipedia ... especially with respect to topics such as the American Civil War, which is of great significance and global interest. 86.146.47.248 (talk) 03:16, 26 December 2009 (UTC).

Agree – with 86.146.47.248's argument: The target reader is just the opposite of those familiar with the subject. Disagree – with anyone who asserts that this editor sees any way to fix it. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 04:00, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe the right approach then is to change the justification but not the rules? Say, "This avoids articles being written in a variety that ..." and then fill in the blank with a less nationalist justification? Ozob (talk) 04:20, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

1. Wikipedia articles should be written in such a way that they can be understood by anyone with significant English proficiency, regardless of the variety that that person has been taught. 2. Strong national ties seem to me to be a good way to settle the matter of which variety to use in each article. Why should an article on George Washington be written in New Zealand English when he is an American icon? Darkfrog24 (talk) 06:03, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Nobody in the thread, that I can tell, has argued that the rule should be changed. As Ozob clarified, it is the justification for the rule that looks wonky when you think about it, which 86.146.47.248 has done. My own belief is that the rule has "strong consensus, both past and present". Explaining why the rule is, is the challenge here. This rule seems to need some sort of justification, because of the diversity of editors and the varieties of English they speak and write. It strikes me that other rules in the MOS do not really need to explain why they are, but merely document for the reader that they are so. For example, I've been wondering how or why the names of named ships ever got italicized in the first place, but MOS doesn't say: It strikes me that it doesn't really need to, that ain't its job. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 06:20, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe then the right approach is to remove the justification entirely. Take out the paragraph after the list, so that the list is immediately followed by "In a biographical or critical article ..." What would everyone think of that? Ozob (talk) 10:17, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

What about just removing "great" and replacing "readers" with "writers"? I think that it is the case that most people writing about the American Civil War are likely to be Americans themselves. BTW, I agree 100% with both of Darkfrog24's points. ― A. di M.^{2nd Dramaout} 12:03, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree with that. Although it may in practice be true, I don't see that it's something we particularly want to highlight. Anyone from anywhere in the world is welcome to make constructuve edits to any article. 86.133.242.124 (talk) 00:17, 27 December 2009 (UTC).

RFC at NCP

There is a request for comments active at WP:NCP's talk page, which is likely to be of interest to regular participants here. – SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 04:47, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

for those of you know a dozen meanings of NCP or else aren't fluent in gibberish, that means Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (people)#Should naming conventions for people apply regardless of topic/project? —— Shakescene (talk) 06:30, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Hyphens as minus signs

In sortable wikitables, you must use a hyphen (-) as a minus sign. − will break the sorting. I've updated the MOS accordingly. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:31, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't see why this change is needed. Aren't there standard tricks for making entries sort differently from their appearance? See, for example, the |sortable=yes parameter of {{circa}}. Eubulides (talk) 03:34, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

This problem is best fixed by changing the code for sortable wikitables, not by requiring hyphens instead of minus signs. Ozob (talk) 03:42, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

It was a problem earlier today, two different editors made good-faith block-replaces of minus signs in a wikitable with −, presumably acting according to WP:MOS. Please, replace what I put in with some other text to caution editors not to blindly use − in sortable wikitables, but rather do The Right Thing™, whatever the right thing is. I also agree, sortable wikitables needs to be fixed, but until it is, we can't have the MOS encouraging people to do something that will ~~break the wiki~~ break the wikitable. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:45, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

The actual breakage can be seen here: wikitable sort broken, wikitable sort working. I don't know how to change table classes, but {| class="wikitable sortable" ... |} needs to be fixed in the long run.

It ought to be fairly easy for a template hacker to fix {{nts}} so that it works with negative numbers too. Perhaps you can ask one of the number hackers to do that. Eubulides (talk) 03:51, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

There is already a way to hack around this using Help:Sorting#Numeric sorting with hidden key, but it's not a great solution. Ozob (talk) 03:58, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Eww, you are right, that's not pretty. I think the MOS should concede to technical limitations or the impractically of recommending difficult workarounds for as long as the technical limits exist. However, the wiki should work quickly to eliminate the technical issues. Feel free to raise this issue at the appropriate numbers-templates-tables-etc.-discussion pages. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

A much better solution ought to be to replace this:

num = parseFloat(s.replace(/,/g, ""));

with something like this:

num = parseFloat(s.replace(/,/g, "").replace(/−/g,"-"));

in wikibits.js. Can you please arrange for this simple fix to be installed? I don't know what "the appropriate numbers-templates-tables-etc.-discussion pages" page. Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 04:11, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, you are getting a bit out of my league. I'm not an expert in parser functions and I have no idea what it would take to modify the behavior of the "wikitable sortable" table class. I'm going to bed, can you ask someone on the tech pump to come over here and give us a hand? Thanks. If .js code needs to be fixed, then ignore what I said about raising the issue at the appropriate discussion page, the issue needs to be raised with people who can make the appropriate technical changes, whoever they are. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:17, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Ozob: the solution is to fix the table-sort facility, not to bend the MoS to accept bad practice. Tony (talk) 04:56, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

We could do this in a way which recognizes character entity-refs in addition to literal minus signs:

.replace(/−/gi, "-").replace(/&(?:minus|#x0*2212|#0*8722);/gi, "-")

Otherwise we′ll need to unicodify the wiki-text (change above codes to “−”) more aggressively when editing pages. In fact doing both wouldn′t hurt either. ⤺ms.⁴⁵ 14:15, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

So, um, what's the next step? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:51, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Bugzilla. ⤺ms.⁴⁵ 13:33, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the right approach is to completely unescape the table entry before parsing it. Furthermore, there's an error in ts_currencyToSortKey that makes it not properly handle negative numbers. I brought this up on WP:VPT#Minus signs in sortable wikitables but it didn't get much of a response. Ozob (talk) 14:21, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

When someone with the know-how to recommend a specific fix puts it up on bugzilla, please post the bug here. Thanks. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 14:41, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

How do we know when this show is on the road? I don't think it should be allowed to fade away. Tony (talk) 07:28, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, nobody else has taken the initiative, so I went ahead and filed: [7]. Ozob (talk) 20:48, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Fix committed. [8] Ozob (talk) 21:00, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I′m afraid this patch has a bug in it. The hyphen is no longer in the first or last position so you must escape it as “\-”, otherwise it will indicate a character range (in this case matching any symbol between U+002B PLUS SIGN and U+2212 MINUS SIGN). Best practice is always to do this when you want to match a literal hyphen. Actually I believe I read once about a very similar error on the spam blacklist. ☺ ⤺ms.⁴⁵ 05:47, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

The bug's been reopened. Ozob (talk) 08:16, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Question about regional spellings

I came across this oddity in Agatha Christie's Poirot and wondered if anyone had any views. The text reads:

Suchet himself said to The Strand magazine: "What I did was, I had my file on one side of me and a pile of stories on the other side and day after day, week after week, I plowed through most of Agatha Christie’s novels about Hercule Poirot and wrote down characteristics until I had a file full of documentation of the character. And then it was my business not only to know what he was like, but to gradually become him. I had to become him before we started shooting."[5]

The issue here is the spelling of "plowed". It seems strange that the quoted spoken words of a British actor -- moreover in an article about a British subject -- should use an American spelling. However, the printed quote that's referenced does use that spelling. What do you think? 86.136.195.104 (talk) 20:14, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I've read that some American publishers edit stuff so that it uses American spelling, so make sure the edition you're quoting was published in Britain; if it is, the policy is not to mangle direct quotations, except for obvious typos and the like. ― A. di M.^{2nd Dramaout} 20:21, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

While I agree with AM's point about printed sources (the Harry Potter books were quite famously "translated" into American English, the first one especially), this doesn't seem to be the case for the Suchet quote. The subject was speaking out loud, so he would have been using British pronunciation but not British spelling or in fact any spelling at all. Since the source is the text from The Strand and not an audio recording of Suchet's voice, then the spelling used in the original text should stand. Darkfrog24 (talk) 05:10, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Darkfrog, it seems to be your main theme to enlarge some kind of "split" between the very very similar varieties of English. Here, in a unitary project, it is more practical to emphasise their similarities and not to expand rules for distinguishing them. We already have enough rules, and they work well for the most part: we don't want a succession of more fine-grained regulations that hamper English as a homogenous agent on the Internet. Tony (talk) 05:35, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

What the heck, Tony? No one here proposed a new rule. Never mind that I'm the one saying "we don't need a rule about this" left and right. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:00, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

http://i773.photobucket.com/albums/yy12/joedid/English/AtoEDictionary.jpg ― A._di_M.^{2nd Dramaout} (formerly Army1987) 20:33, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Concur with Tony1 that we don't need to write a new or more narrow rule. This is a case that won't come up often. Agree with Darkfrog24 that in this case, it should be the spelling of the original written source, since that's what we've got for real that isn't supposition. If I quoted the character of Lee Adama from the recent Battlestar Galactica as saying "you've shown your true colors", I wouldn't change the spelling to "colours" just because the actor, Jamie Bamber, is British; it was an American script. Likewise I wouldn't change the spelling of "colour" from Shakespeare, even if quoting someone as American as Woody Harrelson doing lines from the Bard in an overtly American production that re-cast Hamlet in Texas. Unless the script was available and used American spelling. – SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 05:54, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

On one hand, ideally it'd be more appropriate to use the spelling Suchet would have used himself if he had been writing rather than speaking. On the other hand, we cannot know what that spelling would have been, and guessing that it's "ploughed" because Suchet is British would be WP:SYNTH; so I guess we'd better stick to the source. ― A._di_M.^{2nd Dramaout} (formerly Army1987) 12:39, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Slash

Assuming we practice what we preach concerning WP:SLASH, should we change "Српски / Srpski" in the language list at the bottom of the Main Page? Or if that example is an exception, did you know how many featured articles have slashes, most of which seem preferable to devoting an extra sentence to explain the relationship? Art LaPella (talk) 23:48, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I've long thought the MoS was a little strict on slashes; but it should advise editors to be cautious in using it, I feel. Tony (talk) 15:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Number signs

The Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Number signs section seems to me like it belongs in WP:MOSNUM not WT:MOS, since (at least in the contexts in which it is mentioned at WT:MOS) it is only used in conjunction with numbers, like ÷, % and currency symbols. That said, I feel that an exception is mandated by real-world practice, and that a sentence or bullet point should be added> When reporting standings or other statistics in sports and competitions, the # symbol should be used in lists and tables (including infoboxes), but not regular prose. This is already actual practice, it should just be acknowledged. The "and competitions" bit is a nod to non-sports games and other "races" where "#2", etc. might be used more figuratively, e.g. box office or pop song charts. – SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 23:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Nationalisms

Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Strong national ties to a topic states in part "Australians should not stumble over Americanisms in Australian Defence Force; Americans should not find Briticisms in American Civil War." I do think it makes sense to have internally consistent British English spelling within an article regarding something British, etc. as the previous section indicates. However, whether nationalisms ("A manner of speech, idiom, etc., associated with or unique to people of a particular nation. Obs. rare." OED) are appropriate, I'm less certain. No reader should have to "stumble over" nationalisms; Wikipedia:Explain jargon applies here, I think. Шизомби (talk) 17:48, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

OTOH, "color" is not a valid BrE spelling and "colour" is not a valid AmE spelling, so we need to use nation-specific words sometimes. ― A. di M. — 2nd Great Wikipedia Dramaout 22:04, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Once an article is established in one variety of English, it should commit to that variety entirely, in punctuation as well as in spelling. However, general good encyclopedic writing principles will cover many cases of -isms. "Rubber" means "condom" in American English and "eraser" in British English, but it's slang in both. Is this the sort of nationalism you're talking about? Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:26, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

The section has been reworded somewhat since I originally posted, with the mention of "Briticisms" dropped. The spelling variations aren't apt to cause much confusion; I was agreeing that "colour" in an article about something British and "color" in an article about something American seems fine. Words or phrases that are apt to be understood only by certain nationals are probably best avoided, or their meaning spelled out in some concise way. "Rubber" may be a good example, although there are probably ones whose meaning is more obscure. Шизомби (talk) 22:37, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I think a good example of your second point may already be in the Manual of Style: "fixed-wing aircraft", which is understood by most English-speakers, as opposed to "fixed-wing aeroplane" (British usage) or "fixed-wing airplane" (US usage). —— Shakescene (talk) 07:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Rubber's actually a poor example, since it doesn't mean "condom" to anyone in the US under the age of about 40 or so any more, and few of them use it any longer. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 07:39, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

In listing items...

In a sentence of listed items where the idea isn't that all possible items are included, is it appropriate to use "et cetera/etc." or a phrase like "and many more" at its end? I would generally assume this is unencyclopedic writing, but I don't see any policy specifically addressing this and there is some dispute about it in an article I've been watching. Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 17:06, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

You mean WP:MOS#Subset terms? ― A._di_M.^{2nd Dramaout} (formerly Army1987) 20:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

etc, and so on, and the rest—these are rather informal. Better are such items as "such as", "including", "among which are". Tony (talk) 01:07, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Songs

I reverted an addition of an admonition to not call a piece of music as "song" if it doesn't have singing in it, because it is instruction creep and is essentially a content, not style issue that would be settled at the affected article, like calling a particular biography subject a chemist when she was really a zoologist, or whatever. MOS is neither a naming convention nor a place to determine proper terminology for something. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 22:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

A completely different en-dash issue

Quite some time ago I advocated (and even had wording at MOSDASH advocating) the usage of HTML character entity codes instead of Unicode for en-dashes, em-dashes and real minus signs. The reason behind this remains very clear to me: For many editors (due to eyesight) and for any editors (using any of various unclear fonts), the only way to reliably be certain that an en-dash or whatever has in fact been used is to see the entity code, as the actual characters look too similar, or are even completely identical (eyesight and font problems, respectively). There's really no mistaking –. There are various AWB users and maybe even a bot by now that routinely change entity en-dashes (at least; maybe other characters) to Unicode, despite the problems I'm raising here and despite the fact that not everyone's system even supports Unicode at all (especially true in poorer countries where en.WP is used heavily, e.g. Jamaica and Belize). I'd like to see bots do the opposite. I had what I thought was good language in there, but someone deleted it during one of my long absences from MOS. It did not mandate usage of entities, just encouraged it, on the basis that users who don't want to be bother with them shouldn't have to, but they should be left alone when someone like me is conscientious enough to use them. PS: This issue strongly affects en-dashes and math minus signs; it's rarely an issue with em-dashes, though I have in fact encountered fonts that use the exact same glyph for all four characters. My preferred monospaced, non-proportional editing font (which I use in edit windows here) does not very clearly distinguish between hyphens and en-dashes (perfect in every other way, though, e.g. with 0 and O, and with 1, I and L, and so on), so this is matter of some personal as well as theoretical interest to me, by way of disclaimer. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 15:46, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

In an ideal world, two hyphens and three hyphens in the source would automagically become an en dash and an em dash in the rendered article (as in TeX), except in <code> tags and the like (so that we can still write the decrement operator in programming language examples). This would be clearly distinguishable in the source while not making it nearly illegible as – and — do. (By the same token, it'd be useful if underscores automagically turned in non-breaking spaces in the rendered article excepts in URLs, <code> tags, etc., so that we can type 24_kg rather than 24 kg.) Also, I guess people whose system doesn't "supports Unicode at all" would have trouble in seeing dashes in the rendered pages, too. ― A. di M. — 2nd Great Wikipedia Dramaout 16:24, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with SMcCandlish, HTML entities for characters that could be confused should not be changed to Unicode. If you want a simple list of what not to change, how about everything that has a name rather than a number? In the case where the name exists but the number is actually used, perhaps it should be changed to the name?

As a separate but further improvement, I would like to see a facility in the editor to highlight any character and have the editor tell you what it is.

I disagree with A. di M. in that I don't want to learn a bunch of tricks that only work on Wikipedia and not in most other editing environments. I'm already disgusted with the way Wikipedia deals with linefeeds. --Jc3s5h (talk) 16:28, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Just to be really clear my proposal is going nowhere near that far. All I'm saying is don't Unicodify – and −. I don't even care about —, but I suppose it could be included for consistency. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 11:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean by "has a name rather than a number"? If you refer to named entities, I don't think it is that useful to use them for characters like "à" or "→", which, while they have named entities à and →, they cannot be possibly mistaken for anything else in the edit window (provided the font one uses is not that broken). ― A. di M. — 2nd Great Wikipedia Dramaout 17:25, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I mean characters that have a name code like → and not just a number code like § (§, section). It would take a lot of work to figure out which characters would be hard to distinguish visually. If we don't want to undertake that work, we could use the existence of a name code as an indication that others have perceived the need to use the code in source code. It's true that if we take that shortcut, we would sweep in some characters that are visually distinct, but are the name codes typed often enough to require a bot or AWB runs to fix them?

By the way, I've read somewhere that AWB, when doing general fixes, does not convert name codes to Unicode in cases where it is hard to distinguish the characters visually. I don't know how well this strategy was implemented. -Jc3s5h (talk) 18:01, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

The choice of which characters to give named entities was more based on which characters were more commonly used than on visual similarity, AFAICT. Back then (in the late '90s, with ), character sets such as UTF-8 were not that widespread, so to ensure compatibility you would not want to use any character not in US-ASCII directly. Named entities were also created for characters which have special meanings in HTML, namely < > and "; later the entity ' was added for the same reason. (On the other hand, characters which are nearly identical to others, such as the quotation bar (first char in my sig) or some Japanese kana, have no named entity.) ― A. di M. — 2nd Great Wikipedia Dramaout 19:48, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree – Totally agree with SMcCandlish on the point raised. The entities are "most preferred" though not all editors will use them; that's OK, I can just fix what I can fix, and use an entity to indicate to other editors that it's already fixed, and needs no further review. However, bots actively pulling the entities in favor of the characters should never happen. I've already appealed to a bot-runner here on this issue. I've received no reply as yet. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 20:32, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

“§” is encoded as §. Most variable-width fonts will assign a visually distinctive glyph to every letter, number, or symbol common enough to merit an HTML character entity reference (except for white-space and a handful of Greek spoof-letters of course). However for the editing window I recommend the monospace font called “monospace” ☺ (you can find this in older versions of the ttf-georgewilliams package—and it might still be the default for some distros) on account of its n-dash is several pixels longer than its hyphen at the same font-size. ⤺ms.⁴⁵ 20:13, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with Ms. 45. The various characters might have small differences that can be distinguished if the binary font file is examined with appropriate software, but many cannot be distinguished in the normal environment, where the font is small, the reader may have less than ideal vision, and the reader has to contend with dozens of different fonts in hundreds of applications, and is seldom aware of which font he/she is looking at. Also suggesting the use of a font that most users don't have ready access to is absurd. --Jc3s5h (talk) 21:25, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed about that. I have the same font she has, and while the hyphen is noticeably shorter, the minus sign is just one pixel narrower than the dashes. (The dashes occupy the whole box, so that consecutive ones connect, while the leftmost pixel in the minus sign is white.) In any event, even in this font en- and em dashes are identical (at least at this size). I'd be somewhat surprised if there were a monospaced font in which the four are all clearly distinct. ― A. di M. — 2nd Great Wikipedia Dramaout 21:35, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I feel relieved that I'm not the only one who wants to see character entities instead of a black line of mysterious width. Ozob (talk) 22:33, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid html units present a huge clutter factor in the edit mode. While it was an execrable decision by ignorant developers originally to use the same symbol to represent hyphens and en dashes (although no em dashes, strangely), I use GregU's dash bot on articles, which changes the gobbledy into a plain symbol. It also changes hyphens wrongly used to range dates, page numbers, scores, etc. I suggest you upload the dash bot and use it to check an article. Tony (talk) 04:18, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Oddly, I have an opinion on this, against my own personal preference. The anti-clutter argument arises in edit mode the second I need to cite a source. Welp, guess what, I pretty much always need to cite a source, and many editors before me have done so already. Having previously granted that any inline cite will cause huge clutter in edit mode, all other anti-clutter arguments I had just went out the door. I will throw out this bathwater, leaving the baby, so to speak. In my estimation of the situation, edit mode will contain clutter and I accept that: The best I know how to do to contain it is to try to format templates nicely for myself and for other editors. Beyond that, as an editor I have to put up with the clutter in edit mode: the text will always be badly broken up in edit mode, and "Show preview" will simply have to save the day for me, which it does, mostly, just fine. So, I have given up on the anti-clutter argument, it seems impossible to me to win it. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 07:00, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Tony about clutter. As for monospaced fonts having the same glyph for the two, that's a hold-over of when the - character was used for everything (it is still officially known as HYPHEN-MINUS), which was due to older character sets being smaller (only 95 printable characters in ASCII), for technical reasons. ― A. di M. — 2nd Great Wikipedia Dramaout 10:12, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

And for once I have to disagree with Tony1. Aladdin said it well. Clutter's pretty much a non-issue when it comes to edit mode, since everything about wikitext is clutter upon clutter. The not-frequently-needed and quite short clutter caused by something like – is a small price to pay for certainty than an article is coded correctly. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 11:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

¶ (that's alt+0182 or ¶ or ¶) I can live (grudgingly) with the ambiguities of my equal-width editing font (Courier New) and tiny low-resolution screen, but this raises a whole sea of problems that would fast drive me into joining, reviving and rallying the Hyphen Luddites. It's bad enough to be too precise with en-dashes that aren't strictly needed in section titles and article names, but once we have URLish article names like [[Jackson's first administration '1829&endash;1833(]] or [[Guillain&endash;BarréSyndrome]], it's clear that the purely-pragmatic reasons that mandate straight quotation marks (inch-marks and foot-marks, although specialists have more-distinct names) over curly inverted commas (alt+0146-0149) have completely lost out to an unreachable ideal. Somewhere the madness has to stop. Or else the interface has to accept and display something more readable. Just as most of us (let alone off-the-street IP editors) will never achieve a useful working knowledge of the International Phonetic Alphabet, most editors will never master HTML/ASCII tags well enough to be able to read such prose or to write readable prose in this form that is free of foolish and occasionally pernicious errors. Nor should we expect them to.

Non-coders like me can read (¿and begin to memorize?) the 252 character-entity codes at List of XML and HTML character entity references. Unfortunately, it didn't give me the magic words for opening and closing parentheses. —— Shakescene (talk) 11:18, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) A lot more response than I expected (TLDR for the moment - I'm tired). But I did want to respond to the last edit summary I saw: I wasn't suggesting that entity codes be used in heading and titles, only in prose. It actually IS easy, in most cases, to see the diff. between the characters in headings and titles. Just not in infoboxes and regular paragraphs. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 11:44, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

PS: Also, what the historical reasons are behind some vagaries of monospaced fonts isn't of any importance. Those vagaries are still there, yet these fonts are still way more useful than their variable-width counterparts when it comes to coding work. And that doesn't touch the vision issue at all. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 11:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, the font Andale Mono distinguishes all four. ― A. di M. — 2nd Great Wikipedia Dramaout 11:48, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

If there's solid consensus that changing those gobbledy things into simple symbols is not preferred, can someone please contact User:GregU and ask him to remove this function from his script? Tony (talk) 13:06, 23 December 2009 (UTC) Oh, and let me get this right: sometimes, one wants to insert a non-breaking space before an en dash. So you'd have to write " –", right? My eyes are smarting. SMcCandlish, some clutter is inevitable in edit-mode, but surely it's worth trying to minimise it for the sake of all editors, especially visitors and newbies? This is the encyclopedia "anyone can edit", yes? Tony (talk) 13:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Tony, I'm not "anti-minimizing". As I bold-faced up above, I'm not proposing that entity codes be used generally, only for en-dashes (and non-breaking spaces by necessity, not preference; that doesn't have any bearing on the en-dashes issue). – SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 10:32, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, one can write "{{endash}}" or "{{ndash}}", which produces a non-breaking space, en dash, and space, as in "foo{{endash}}bar" which produces "foo – bar" and is IMO much easier to read. --Pi zero (talk) 13:56, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I've seen that template before and removed it because it seemed to produce a thin-spaced en dash (where an unspaced one was required). Was it being misused, then—should it be used only where a spaced en dash is indicated? I don't mind the idea of thin spaces around en dashes (where they are mandated as spaced punctuation), but when User:JimP developed a template for non-breaking and spaced something or other at MOSNUM a few years ago, it all fell apart when we realised that some browsers (read: Internet Explorer) would not render it properly. Tony (talk) 14:03, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Right now it expands into " – ", so it's for spaced en dashes only, but OTOH there should be no technical problems with its current implementation. ― A. di M. — 2nd Great Wikipedia Dramaout 17:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I also agree with Tony that we don't want the edit window cluttered with HTML &goo; codes when there is an alternative. As for needing   before spaced en dashes, that's another reason to just get rid of these ugly beasts!—Finell 04:46, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I don't see any actual consensus that non-breaking spaces before spaced en-dashes are necessary. That's a red herring, and arguing against my proposal on such a basis is a straw man. :-) All I've said is that en-dashes should use a character entity code, or many of us cannot be sure when one is being used at all. I never said put non-breaking spaces in front of it. I never said anything about using entity codes for all sorts of things all over the place. But this entire thread has been dominated by discussion of both of these "problems" which have nothing to do with what I proposed. I'm going to rephrase the entire thing: I will not ever stop encoding en-dashes as –, because it's the only way to be sure. I find it really irritating when bots or (rarely) other human editors change it to a Unicode character, since I or someone else like me who uses the entity codes will just end up changing it back later, because we'll encounter the Unicode, be unsure the right character is being used, and use the entity. This will continue until the end of time, and waste lots of it. Or, people could simply quit replacing the entity codes with Unicode and instead go do something actually constructive. Nevermind the unaddressed fact that people using older systems cannot render Unicode at all. – SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 10:32, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

The “bots” perform the same replacements a web browser must perform anyway before displaying the document, only at an earlier stage so that it normalizes the editing window as well. If they cannot display a literal n-dash which the browser received in the form of a literal n-dash, they will not be able to display one which the browser received encoded as “–” either. Supposing I began cursing you in ancient Gothic ☺—and that you aren′t blessed with the requisite fonts already—encoding the letters as (five-digit!) &xNNNNN; codes won′t make you more able to see them on your screen. ⤺ms.⁴⁵ 11:09, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

The concern is not fonts which don't have a glyph for such characters at all (which are very rare by now), but ones in which -, –, — and − aren't all different, which is the case for most monospaced fonts. This requires editors to preview the page in order to know which character a horizontal line in the edit box is supposed to represent. (Of course, one should preview the page before any non-trivial edit, but I myself usually forget to.) ― A. di M.^{2nd Dramaout} 14:32, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

If any kind of dash is preceded by a space, it must be a non-breaking space. The thought of a dash wrapping to become the first character on a line is too terrible to contemplate.—Finell 11:47, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I′ve never understood why that is such a big deal (or maybe you′re being sarcastic). I thought it to be a trivial and strictly presentational issue as funky spaces hold no semantic value. I enjoy having actual space between my words and numbers (makes them easier to read), and I don′t really think others like seeing unreadable morasses such as  ''[[2 Fast 2 Furious|2 Fast 2 Furious]]'', they simply have picked up the idea (gee, I wonder where) that this degenerate coding is absolutely necessary. If it′s so vital never to suffer the rendering of a numeral at the start or end of any line, I′d suggest letting the software address this when converting wiki-text to html, or adding javascript layer to change \u0020 to \u00A0 when adjacent to a number, or run some bots to do the same thing in the edit window based on this and possibly a few other simple rules, just be sure to use a literal nbsp so normal people need not trouble themselves with the result. Why? Because this is the formatting issue where I′d rather draw the line and take comfort in not giving a damn, provided I don′t have to look at it. ⤺ms.⁴⁵ 21:46, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I was completely, indeed emphatically, serious. Presentation, including aesthetics, is important—especially to the regular inhabitants of this page.—Finell 00:58, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

You'll probably agree that user-friendliness, and therefore empathizing with editors, are also important. "Too terrible to contemplate" is exaggerated, if only because you must have somehow contemplated that terrible dash in order to write about it. Art LaPella (talk) 04:24, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd be less cautious about prescribing non-breaking spaces in general if we had succeeded in working through Noetica's proposal for a simple syntax for it, rather than the unwieldy six characters you have to type / look at currently. Tony (talk) 15:21, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Entering   is just 1 mouse click in the Wiki markup below the edit box; some editors use a macro for it. Generally we favor good presentation to the reader over an editor's convenience. I don't see why it should be any different in prescribing non-breaking spaces where appropriate.—Finell 01:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

So it's three of us in favour of that so far (Noetica, you and me), one against (Jc3s5h who's unwilling to "learn a bunch of tricks that only work on Wikipedia and not in most other editing environments"), and everyone else appears just not to give a damn. Asking the Village Pump, anyone? ― A._di_M.^{2nd Dramaout} (formerly Army1987) 15:50, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm also in favor of a non-breaking space before a dash. (Or a minus sign, plus sign, times sign, etc.) Ozob (talk) 16:42, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Ozob, I may suggest brainstorming a list of trivial cases where a space should be non-breaking based on numbers or symbols which border it. Certain bots and other automatons must use something like this already. Submit it to the developers with the understanding that we may want to expand it later. I believe the most practical and scalable solution is to write using regular spaces and let the software tuck the majority of cases out of sight and mind, because these will be so common that mass editing them probably will annoy more people than it pleases. Of course, we can use a handful of manual nbsp′s to fill the rare unforeseen gap (in both senses). That is, add the markup or literal nbsp′s in places where line-break alignment poses an observable problem (not, for example, between the first and second word of a paragraph ☺). ⤺ms.⁴⁵ 17:29, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with SMcCandlish that no bot should change HTML entities to Unicode. And I agree with Jc3s5h that two or three hyphens should not automagically become an en dash or em dash. This would be a trick that may confuse new editors, and won't work in most editing environments. I personally see no problem entering HTML entities for these characters or others. Clutter is not an issue as long as it gives the desired result to the reader, and is easy to learn and understand for editors. I am in favor of non-breaking spaces before dashes if there is the possibility of a line break at that point, though it is probably not required within the first 30 characters or so of a paragraph (unlikely that a reading window will break there). Non-breaking spaces may not be required within infoboxes if a break cannot occur there. The templates "{{ndash}}" and "{{mdash}}" could be used to reduce the so-called clutter. And if multiple non-breaking spaces are needed, the template "{{nowrap}}" could be used. CuriousEric (talk) 17:04, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Eric, I should mention that {{mdash}} is a bogus template according to the manual of style, which says we should not surround “—” with spaces. Also this, {{ndash}}, and similar templates have a high potential to confuse people because they appear to have a trailing regular (U+0020) space at the end, for parity′s sake okay, yet they trim it away when you try to use them. I do know a neat way to fix these things, except I can′t seem to edit them, and I′m sure many people rely on the current broken behavior, and I′m none too thrilled about using templates just to change the spacing rules (when we could make it happen automatically in most situations, see above). ⤺ms.⁴⁵ 17:50, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

ms., since {{mdash}} is bogus with surrounding spaces, shouldn't it be corrected to only generate the em dash without spaces? This should correct more pages than it 'breaks'. Wikipedia should not provide templates which violate it's own MoS. Could you explain what you mean by "they trim it away when you try to use them"? When I tested "before{{ndash}}after" here "before – after", and view the HTML source in a browser, it appears to produce a regular space at the end "before – after". Thanks. CuriousEric (talk) 17:06, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to defer discussion

I have posted a proposal to defer discussion of dashes, in a section above. I suggest that we also now defer discussion in this section, which is unlikely to yield any robust agreement. Let's turn our attention to urgent overarching matters, for as long as it takes. See details at the linked proposal.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 09:30, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Designing a system for establishing and recording consensus decisions

I agree with what Noetica said, in point 4 of his contribution at 08:34, 25 December 2009, about the need for a system for establishing and recording consensus decisions pertaining to the Manual of Style. Therefore, I am starting this section for a separate discussion specifically focussed on that topic. -- Wavelength (talk) 23:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessarily a good idea if it would lead new contributors to this page to think that they shouldn't re-raise issues and voice their opinions on them. That would be tantamount to saying that they don't count now just because they weren't here then. That's not how WP:CONSENSUS is supposed to work.

However, I would not be opposed to a list of hot-button issues informing new contributors that substantive changes to those parts of the MoS must be discussed on the talk page before they are implemented. As a matter of fact, I wouldn't mind protecting the entire MoS in this manner. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Flexibility is important for when there is a need for change.

Stability is important for when there is a need for keeping the status quo.

In what respects and to what extent should there be flexibility, and by what means should it be controlled?

In what respects and to what extent should there be stability, and by what means should it be controlled?

If an editor (new or old) raises an old issue, we can save time by consulting a record of consensus decisions. If he or she mentions a new perspective on an old issue, there can be a new discussion.

Who wants to work for an employer who changes the rules every week?

Who wants to work for a capricious customer who changes his decision every five minutes?

Customer: Please bring me Combo #5.
Waiter: Here is your Combo #5.
Customer: On second thought, please take that back and bring me Combo #3.
Waiter: Here is your Combo #3.
Customer: Now that I think of it, please take that back and bring me Combo #2.

Who wants to rely on a reference book (for example, a dictionary, a cookbook, or a train schedule) whose inkprints reassemble themselves during the night to spell out new instructions? -- Wavelength (talk) 06:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

A particular issue might have had X previous discussions and Y consensus decisions or none at all. A new discussion with a new decision might be tantamount to saying that the authors of a previous decision do not count now just because their decision can not be found.

If WP:CONSENSUS leads contributors to think that it is always good to mention issues anew, then maybe that guideline needs to be revised with tempering information. -- Wavelength (talk) 07:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I heartily agree with Noetica. A mechanism that allows someone to quickly investigate previous debates and decisions would be a fine idea. Such a mechanism would not prevent someone from starting any discussion they see fit—however it just might make them realise that they don't need/want to. HWV258. 06:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The simplest solution I can think of is an FAQ. Question 1: Why doesn't MoS permit curly quotes? Answer: See [list of discussions]. And so on. This of course shouldn't be used to stifle discussion, but only to ensure that everyone coming into a discussion is aware of the history. Ozob (talk) 14:13, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The system that you're describing would turn the MoS into an oligarchy. Who gets to decide what this FAQ would say? About ten people. That's no good. When someone comes to the talk page and asks "Why doesn't the MoS permit curly quotes?" and one of us responds to the person with "Because they're [reason]" then it's clear that the answer is coming from one person rather than from Wikipedia as a whole or the English language as a whole.

If this is about keeping the MoS stable rather than avoiding conversations that people find pestersome, then a system of tags ["This rule has been placed here deliberately. Do not 'correct' it without first proposing your changes on the discussion page."] would do the trick without creating any illusions. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

On the other hand, if each entry in the list is followed by pointers to the threads in which the issue was discussed, or at least to the most recent such thread, ... ― A._di_M.^{2nd Dramaout} (formerly Army1987) 19:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

"...That's no good..."—of course it wouldn't be compulsory to read the FAQ/scheme/mechanism; and the current system of creating a new section at the bottom of the page in order to ask a question would continue without change. HWV258. 21:17, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

((edit conflict), I've not fully considered Darkfrog's reply fully.) Yeah, that would be a good solution. It works on many talk pages of articles such as Talk:Barack Obama. {{Round In Circles}} could also be useful. ― A._di_M.^{2nd Dramaout} (formerly Army1987) 15:05, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

How about taking threads that have arrived at some consensus and in addition to archiving, create a sub-talk page with just that topic. An index to these pages could be included on this talk page. Ideally, each page could provide a summary of the discussion at the top. It would be similar to a FAQ but the answers would be the discussion of the topic. (John User:Jwy talk) 20:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

{{FAQ}} seems to work well on Talk:Evolution and Talk:Barack Obama, and it should work here too. After all, those pages see lots of controversy, and this one is relatively peaceful. If necessary, the FAQ could contain pointers to past discussions and other pages, as is done in Talk:Evolution. I don't see how this would lead to an oligarchy any more than the current system does. Eubulides (talk) 10:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

There are two things wrong with such a system 1. if it seems to require six pages of reading (archives) before the person may comment, new commenters will give up rather than participate 2. if the system involves a short summary (no archives), then it will be almost impossible to create a short summary that all participants consider to be unbiased. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:19, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The FAQ would itself be subject to consensus and open editing like anything else here, so I don't see an oligarchy issue. That it would suggest reading before creating a new section that supposedly brings up an issue no one has brought up before does not strike me as a bad thing in any way, WP:BOLD not withstanding. WP:BOLD, [[WP:BRD}, etc., are principally about article writing. One need not be bold at all in talkspace, and doing the opposite is generally a good idea, because one will not be reverted, and what one writes here can lead to disputes, tendentious sprawls of rehash, and so on. There are consequences that generally don't apply to articlespace. No need for short summaries. I kind of like the idea above of splitting archive discussions about one thing (dashes, or quotation marks, for example) into new archive pages all about those particular things. That would cut down on the research time required to get up to speed on any particular frequently recycled flamewar. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 22:09, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 105#Guideline-by-guideline citation of sources
and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 105#Page of frequently made challenges. -- Wavelength (talk) 02:27, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
[I am adding punctuation. -- Wavelength (talk) 02:29, 1 January 2010 (UTC)]

In principle, I support the proposal by Noetica and others for some kind of superstructure in which to establish consensus. However, most WP style and policy guides host disputes and uneasy outcomes from time to time. Quite a deal of the MoS has been forged out of disputes, so there's nothing new about flare-ups. While I'm supportive at this stage of proposals for doing things better at WT:MOS, I'm concerned that the same old disagreements will still arise. How would it be better in this respect?
On the matter of an accessible log of consensuses, sure, this sounds like a good idea. So does the writing of an FAQ section (the easiest matter to deal with). Tony (talk) 02:48, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry if I missed this in the conversation. I note two documents that function similar to the "design" discussion here, which may point at a way to do it right, or a way to do it wrong: WP:OUTCOMES, for observations on AfDs, and WP:PEREN, for "you're not as clever as you think to suggest this because we've heard it before". Both documents seem to function in a FAQ-like manner, to clue in editors and help understand the historical behavior of the group as a whole. I note WP:PEREN specifically calls out WP:ENGVAR as an example. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 03:29, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Would it not be acceptable for a FAQ to proffer a summary of the consensus that captures the pros and cons discussed, along with a list of "further reading" links to key archived discussions for those who are truly drawn to the Sturm und Drang (which most would likely shudderingly avoid)? This approach would be a middle ground that both offered the rationale for the consensus (which usually cannot be captured in the MOS) and permit a newly involved editor determine beforehand whether they have a new and previously unconsidered alternative or critique. The link list would also serve to make it easier to find relevant previous discussions and link to them here when new, relevant discussions arise (cf. the courtesy link A. di M. provided to the preceding renewed discussion of gender-neutral pronouns). Askari Mark (Talk) 05:53, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Let's start with Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/FAQ, and {{FAQ}} or one of its alternatives (actually just creating that page will make it show up in {{Round in circles}}, already on this page now). It can become its own big deal like WP:OUTCOMES some day if necessary. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 20:56, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposal for a MoS for Thai-related articles

Finally, we start to see formal notification of applications for elevation to MoS status, at the WikiProject MoS.

I've made some comments there; other comments are welcome. Tony (talk) 21:48, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Cf. meta-discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Manual of Style#Proposal for a MoS for Thai-related articles, bringing up the idea of merging all such would-be subguidelines instead of forking the guidance for every language/culture/country. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 03:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

MOS:NOTED

MOS:NOTED can be interpreted to outlaw the words "of course, naturally, obviously, clearly and actually". But the same page uses the word "clearly" 4 times. I suggest adding the word "can" between "actually" and "make presumptions". Art LaPella (talk) 23:09, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how it would affect "actually". "It was reported in 1935^[1] that Muntz disappeared in South America, presumed dead, but actually. he had been living under an assumed name in Peoria and working as a greengrocer.^[2]." I can think of legitimate uses for all of these words, though legit uses, in articles, for some of them are rare. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 23:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I almost suggested removing the word "actually" myself; it isn't as synonymous as the rest of the list. But then I clicked the WP:Words to avoid link, which gives the example: "The Huron-Manistee National Forests are actually two national forests combined in 1945 for administration purposes," which doesn't strike me as awful, but at least they thought about it.
There are certainly legitimate uses for those words; when I added them to my AWB search, "clearly" in particular appears in many articles, in a context that never matched the rationale stated at MOS:NOTED. Hence "can make presumptions", leading to the Words to Avoid link. Art LaPella (talk) 02:59, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for highlighting the section. Of course I hadn't noted that I actually could write something annoyingly obviously clearly presumptuous in an article, naturally. (I just caught myself doing that in an article I recently re-wrote.) —Aladdin Sane (talk) 16:01, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to rationalise and merge country-related MoSes

It's here, at the WikiProject MoS. High time we did something about the uncoordinated sprawl. Please comment. Tony (talk) 10:36, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Seconded. New users are having trouble dealing with all the regulations that they have to learn, in great part because those regs are hard to find. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Due to → Because of

User:Wavelength has made a large number of edits across various articles changing the phrase "due to" to "because of" where interchangeable, citing the english plus site as his reason. There is clear logic in the grammarian argument – it seeks to avoid ungrammaticality. However, the use of "due to" as a synonym of "because of" is well-established throughout the sources which Wikipedia is based on.

A number of editors have expressed a dissatisfaction with the changes at the user's talk page. Wavelength's rebuttals to these objections have been based solely on strict grammar guides and claims that mainstream media have all got it wrong (e.g. it is a ploy by writers, entertainers and advertisers to disregard the educated and appeal to the less-educated). I fail to grasp the validity of these latter ideas towards English usage on Wikipedia.

Firstly, why should Wikipedia be written in an English that is distinct from the majority of its sources?
Secondly, I believe Wavelength's edits have been in direct conflict with the second general principle of our MOS. "Due to" is in wide usage in academic journals and respected media alike. Our own List of English words with disputed usage notes that people have been using due to in the 'wrong' way for over a century now.

I believe that the usage of "due to" instead of "because of" is merely a stylistic difference, rather than an out and out error. My logic goes as so: if a significant majority of professional writers in a variety of fields use a certain word in a certain way, then why should it not also be used in that manner on Wikipedia? Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits)^{Join WikiProject Athletics!} 00:24, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Three editors have expressed dissatisfaction with this to me. Their names are shown with the discussions at User talk:Wavelength#"because of" (with two subsections added) and User talk:Wavelength#due to, because of. -- Wavelength (talk) 01:27, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

"why should Wikipedia be written in an English that is distinct from the majority of its sources?" God save us, it had better be written better than most of the sources.

"Due to" is often a lazy expression, much loved and chucked in by scientists and others.

I haven't seen the actual edits, but I applaud Wavelength's changes to this expression generally. Can someone provide an example where it degrades the text? Tony (talk) 03:47, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I think that the battle to preserve the "correct" meaning of "due to" is lost, so it's probably not worth worrying about (except perhaps in egregious cases, if there are any). On the other hand, what actual harm is being done by the changes? 86.146.47.248 (talk) 03:57, 26 December 2009 (UTC).

I agree with Wavelength here. While the adverbial "due to" may be correct dialect in some cases, it is not generally accepted as good English. As the list of words with disputed usage notes, it has been used as an adverb for only a century. It may some day be considered good English, but that day is not today. Ozob (talk) 04:15, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia should always use correct English, regardless of how popular certain incorrect phrases are. However, I'm not convinced that "due to" isn't correct English. That being said, "because of" is at least as correct as "due to" is, and the articles certainly wouldn't be worse off for the change. It sounds like Wavelength's changes wouldn't be anything to make a big deal out of.

All right, I've looked it up and there are times when "due to" is not an ideal replacement for "because of," but it's certainly not incorrect all the time. Adverb vs. adjective. Here is [Wikipedia's own page on the matter]. Darkfrog24 (talk) 05:12, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

The matter is not one of grammaticality (language changes, and today due to as an adverbial is no longer strictly ungrammatical), it is one of style. In the contexts that you guys are discussing, because of is stylistically better--it sounds less jilted, and doesn't aggravate people like "due to" can--even though both are grammatical. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:21, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

If there is no grammatical reason to make this change, there is no reason for the change, period. Users are expressly prohibited from making mere stylistic changes in this manner. Both "due to" and "because of" are acceptable choices, and nobody should be trying to impose their own particular preference across the encyclopedia. Gatoclass (talk) 16:51, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

The following text is adapted from User talk:Wavelength#"because of".

I am saying that due to is illogical in some contexts because due is an adjective. Please consider the following sentence: Adolf insured his store for one million dollars, due to the gangster criminals in his precinct. Which noun does the adjective due modify?

If the last eight words are intended to modify the first eight words, then the sentence lacks a linking verb connecting the adjective due with a noun among the first eight words. The following sentence makes sense: Adolf insured his store for one million dollars, because of the gangster criminals in his precinct.

Here is another sentence: At the dog show, Sandra received a prize, due to her charming and talented companion dog. Which noun does the adjective due modify?

The following sentence makes sense: At the dog show, Sandra received a prize, because of her charming and talented companion dog. -- Wavelength (talk) 17:34, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Please consider Wright brothers#Flights (permanent link here): Gliders: 1902 Glider: paragraph 6 of 9: Tests while gliding proved that the trailing edge of the rudder should be turned away from whichever end of the wings had more drag (and lift) due to warping. Does due to warping modify drag (and lift), or is it meant to modify should be turned away or even proved? (Incidentally, while gliding is a dangling modifier.) -- Wavelength (talk) 18:38, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

[I am correcting my spelling. -- Wavelength (talk) 18:40, 26 December 2009 (UTC)]

That's not entirely accurate. The "logical" argument is based on the assumption that the word due has one and only one meaning, and that this meaning cannot be changed; anyone with basic linguistics background knows this to be fallacious. Language changes as it is used, and the fact of the matter is that "due to" has changed to become, in some registers, a lexicalized expression synonymous to "because of". There is simply no tenable linguistic basis for saying that "due to" in this context is grammatically incorrect per se.

What you can say, though, is that it's stylistically incongruous with the register expected of "encyclopedic language". This is what I happen to believe. But even in that case you still need to consider the concerns raised by Gatoclass and others above. Personally, I believe "because of" is certainly better than "due to" in these contexts, but doesn't matter mass replacements; I think it's sufficient to just make those changes when copyediting or reviewing an individual article. Use of "due to" across the project is not something most readers will notice or care about, so there's no urgent need to go "correcting" it with machine (or machine-like) edits. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 19:37, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Tony's comment's cut to the point really – some people regard it as a sort of "lazy" English. This is an opinion, thus it is a stylistic point. Our MOS strictly prohibits changes solely to switch from one style to another.

Wavelength's contributions indicate that he has not been making occasional edits of "due to" to "because of" during article copyedits, but rather he has made a large number of sequential edits that were focused specifically on this issue. I'd estimate that around 30% of his mainspace edits of the past two weeks have been changing "due to" to "because of". In cases of resolving ambiguity, I obviously have no problem with such edits. However, I believe the majority have not been made with this in mind.

Also, perhaps there is a misunderstanding about Wikipedia being reflective of sources in the standard of its English. The sources I use for articles tend to be from journals and professional writers on specialist subjects. However, I suppose the standard of writing of other people's sources may not be one worth mimicking. Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits)^{Join WikiProject Athletics!} 02:15, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

On reflection, I think Wavelength probably has a valid point. However, I'm still uncomfortable with the idea of making "machinelike" edits of this type, because such edits fail to take account of meta-concerns like textual rhythm and repetition, which means they can often make the text worse instead of better. There is more to good prose than just grammatical rules. Gatoclass (talk) 03:04, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Gatoclass, can you cite an example of a case where a "due to" --> "because of" edit has made text worse instead of better? I'd like to see that. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:15, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, here is one mild example to illustrate the point. Wavelength made this edit to the Christmas 1994 nor'easter article. The result of the edit is that you have two paragraphs in a row repeating the "Because of ... " structure. Of course, this was true of the original "Due to ... " construction, but it probably had less impact as "Because of ... " is a more noticeable phraseology.

In a case like this, it would have been better to change the structure of at least one these sentences, for example, the sentence Because of the uncertain nature of the storm, the National Hurricane Center (NHC) did not classify it as a tropical cyclone might have been changed to something like As the nature of the storm was still uncertain, the National Hurricane Center did not classify it as a tropical cyclone. If you are just going to go through articles changing every iteration of "Due to ... " to "Because of ... ", you are not really engaging with the structure of the text and so you are not necessarily improving it and may in fact be making it worse. Gatoclass (talk) 07:38, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, that's a reasonable example. I agree that one should never edit Wikipedia mechanically, but always with a mind to specific context. However, the example is also very minor and easy to fix. Surely the best solution in that case is to find a way to rephrase the article to avoid the clunkiness of excessive parallelism - as you yourself suggest. Changing "due to" to "because of", and making the clunkiness more apparent seems likely to lead to someone fixing it for real, so I have a hard time coming out completely against it. I still would prefer that everyone make every edit mindfully and with attention to style, grammar, economy of expression, etc. That's an ideal to strive for. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:28, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

There seem to be two different ideas here: 1. "Due to" as an equivalent for "because of" might be acceptable in casual speech and may one day be correct English, but it isn't correct English yet. 2. "Due to" as an equivalent to "because of" has been around long enough that it counts as correct English. It seems as though there is an easy way to figure out which one of these two ideas should hold true for Wikipedia: Consult the style guides. What do Chicago and MLA have to say about "due to" vs. "because of"? When right-thinking Wikipedians disagree, we should consult the sources.

It sounds as though "due to" can be argued to be correct, but "because of" definitely is correct. Wavelength did not make the articles any worse by making the change and may well have made them better, however subtly. So my question is this: 3. What, if any, are the negative consequences of changing "due to" to "because of"?

Specific reply to Raj about the idea that people don't notice. I believe that they do, just not the same way we do. When most people (I mean non-grammarpunct nerds) pick up a piece of writing, they get a general impression that it is high-quality or low-quality, even if they can't pick out the exact comma placements and turns of phrase that make them feel that way. Darkfrog24 (talk) 05:06, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I selected the following 20 links from the first 30 results of my Google search for the bracketed terms [style guide "due to" "because of"] without the brackets. I did not exclude any result on the basis of its disagreeing with my position, although most of them agree with me. I omitted links where due to was used but not mentioned (see Use–mention distinction).

-- Wavelength (talk) 07:08, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

[I am correcting my spelling. -- Wavelength (talk) 07:10, 27 December 2009 (UTC)]

Actually Wavelength, your very first example only raises more doubts in my mind. It states that " ... common phrases such as Due to circumstances beyond our control . . . and Due to inclement weather . . . are incorrect ... " But these phrases are so common they are virtually part of the lexicon. Should we really suddenly be changing them to "Because of circumstances beyond our control" because some esoteric rule says the standard phrase is incorrect? It does remind me a little of Churchill's rejection of another rule at odds with common usage as "something up with which I will not put". Gatoclass (talk) 07:57, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I just stumbled upon this. There's a lot here, which I only skimmed over. I hope you guys don't mind if I interject my own take on this. While I sympathize with the view Wavelength is espousing by making these edits, I also agree with Sillyfolkboy's apparent disquiet about them. The thing is though, there really isn't a problem here as long as no one actively edit wars over the issue. If Wavelength is performing his edits manually, at a reasonable rate of speed, and he's willing to allow others to revert the changes at an individual article level, then there's no problem. At the same time, this requires that no one begin following his edits around looking to revert the changes that he desires to make. That's the nub of consensus, right there...
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 07:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Gatoclass rightly points out that there are a number of phrases which are seemingly incorrect but have become standard usage. Similarly, I agree that rephrasing of sentences (such as the hurricane example) are a much better way of approaching the situation and this manner applies a kind of real, human lexical variety to articles.

I must point out, however, that we shouldn't be here to discuss the argument of which is more correct/incorrect. My main point is that the use of "due to" is a matter of style. To claim that writers across millions of well-written texts are all incorrect is a little facetious. It is merely that they are using a different style; one which is widespread and largely accepted by English readers. If it is a style then it is protected by the MOS from systematic changes which do not otherwise engage with the article text. Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits)^{Join WikiProject Athletics!} 12:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

To back up the point that the use of "due to" in this way is widely accepted, here are uses from a number of well-regarded newspapers, all from this week: NY Times, Guardian, The Times (London), The Washington Post, The Daily Telegraph, USA Today. Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits)^{Join WikiProject Athletics!} 12:37, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a vast number of usage manuals readily to hand, but guess what? Neither Fowler's Modern English Usage (1926) nor Sir Ernest Gowers' revised (or second) edition of Fowler (1965) wants to replace the "due to" that they disparage with "because of" (in fact neither even mentions "because of".) Fowler prescribes, and Gowers greatly prefers, "owing to". Perhaps because I've spent most of my life in the U.S., I find "owing to" rather vague and almost never use the phrase myself except perhaps in "largely owing to". So a blanket replacement of "due to" with "because of" is uncalled for. (Even 45 years ago, Sir Ernest was half-resigned, if not happily, to the prevalence of "due to", citing its use in the 1957 Canadian Speech from the Throne — written not of course by Her Majesty, but by her ministers in the Dominion of Canada, led by that proud, loyal Tory John Diefenbaker.)
But even without that, I can think of places where "due to" might fit better, or less clumsily, than "because of". To my mind "due to" suggests a number of possible and distinguishable causes, e.g. "due to inflation" versus "due to real growth". Where you're comparing possible causes, "due to" may work better, as in "Due more to falling food prices than to the bad weather, farm foreclosures skyrocketed.", where "More because of falling prices than because of the bad weather,..." is wordier and clumsier. There are problems with all four of the common alternatives that I can think of: "due to", "because of", "owing to" and "on account of". What's often really needed is an Orwellian recasting into the way we first spoke, using "because" as a straightforward subordinating conjunction leading a nice active, declarative subordinate clause: "My ice cream melted because it's hot" rather than "because of the heat", "due to the heat", "owing to the heat" or "on account of the heat", let alone "due to the fact that it's hot". And the only way to know that any change (whether by recasting or by simple substitution of words) still reflects, or better reflects, the author's intended meaning is to get into the article itself, not to correct perceived infelicities from afar or en masse.
So, as with "untimely death", I just don't agree to treating what is useful guidance in some contexts (decreasing euphemism, circumlocution, bureaucratese, legalese and commercialese) as some kind of enforceable or prescriptive rule. —— Shakescene (talk) 14:48, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Darkfrog24, at 05:06, 27 December 2009, said "Consult the style guides." I provided 20 links, but it appears that most of them are being ignored.

Gatoclass, at 07:38, 27 December 2009, said:

If you are just going to go through articles changing every iteration of "Due to ... " to "Because of ... ", you are not really engaging with the structure of the text and so you are not necessarily improving it and may in fact be making it worse.

In fact, I considered the context in each case, sometimes leaving "due to" unchanged, sometimes changing it to "because of", and sometimes changing "due to the fact that" to "because". My selectiveness, based on consideration of the contexts, is reflected in some of my edit summaries.

GTBacchus, at 19:28, 27 December 2009, referred to "excessive parallelism", but repetition can be beneficial–see Repetition (rhetorical device).

Rjanag, at 19:37, 26 December 2009, said:

Use of "due to" across the project is not something most readers will notice or care about.

The fact that there are style guides advising against this use of "due to" indicates that an important number of readers will notice and care about it. The number of people who will notice this use of "due to" is almost certainly larger than the number of people who will notice "because of" in its place.

At 01:27, 26 December 2009, I provided links to the discussions at User talk:Wavelength#"because of" (with two subsections added) and User talk:Wavelength#due to, because of to show the names of editors who had expressed dissatisfaction with me. Please also see the actual discussions there.

-- Wavelength (talk) 21:49, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Of course repetition can be beneficial; you needn't tell me how it's used rhetorically. (How far from literate do I seem?) Parallel constructions are wonderful. "Excessive parallelism" is, by definition, excessive. In the exchange above, I granted to Gatoclass that the example was a fine one to talk about, but it doesn't matter. You'll notice that my main point was that your edits are justified, regardless of whether that one example truly was pertinent. I'm supporting you; you needn't refute me.

I do maintain that excessive parallelism can be fixed by clever rewording with attention to context. I'm glad to hear that you're considering each case on individual merits, with careful attention to detail; that's what I do every time I change "like" into "such as". Cheers. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:36, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

GTBacchus, I apologize for misunderstanding you. I should have referred to a statement by Gatoclass at 07:38, 27 December 2009.

The result of the edit is that you have two paragraphs in a row repeating the "Because of ... " structure.

-- Wavelength (talk) 00:09, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language, in one of its many asides about prescriptive follies, notes on page 609:

The construction illustrated in [the sentence Due to the rain, the match was cancelled] has been subject to a great deal of prescriptive criticism: it is commonly claimed that this usage is incorrect, that due to in such cases should be replaced by owing to or because of. The prepositional usage is, however, unquestionably well-established, and this is recognized by the more empirically-based manuals.

As far as I'm concerned, this empirical statement is worth far more than what a style guide says, especially given how many style guides just make things up about the English language. Strad (talk) 23:33, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

You say that you considered the contexts Wavelength, but in your last four edits of this kind ([9][10][11][12]) it is merely a stylistic change – no problems were resolved and the overall benefit was negligible. You also say that you've often applied a variety of different copyediting changes, but your contributions strongly suggest this is not the case – they show a user who changes "due to" to "because of" in perhaps even 50% of their overall mainspace edits. My demonstrations of "due to"'s accepted current usage in this form and Shakescene's and Strad's readings of Fowler's Modern English Usage and Cambridge Grammar of the English Language show it is not absolutely incorrect, but rather it is well-established (albeit frowned upon in some quarters).

I'll state my point again: the MOS forbids changes which are intended solely to alter the style, rather than bring a net benefit to an article. Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits)^{Join WikiProject Athletics!} 23:43, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

The word "forbid" seems to me unnecessarily strong. First of all, Wavelength's edits are "intended" (Sillyfolkboy's word choice) to bring a net benefit. Whether the change is merely stylistic is not 100% beyond question; in Wavelength's estimation it is not merely stylistic.

Wavelength, I make a recommendation. Since there is clearly some dispute regarding the rightness of your edits, why not refrain from changing "due to" to "because of" unless you're also making another edit - pending further discussion? You're not "forbidden" anything; Wikipedia does not run on binding statutory rules. You're invited to note that there is some dissent from the community, and to therefore hold back on the edit until some kind of consensus becomes clear. Does that seem reasonable? -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:12, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I do not have a clear understanding of what consensus is on Wikipedia. -- Wavelength (talk) 19:09, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Putting this in a slightly wider context, I don't think there should be any objection to Wavelength's "mission". I see some are asking why we should use a different style from our sources, but surely any one of us can produce examples of poorly-written material that is nonetheless a WP:RS. On a related note, Gatoclass asks, "common phrases such as Due to circumstances beyond our control . . . and Due to inclement weather . . . are incorrect ... But these phrases are so common they are virtually part of the lexicon. Should we really suddenly be changing them ...?"—the same is true of various common errors, such as "comprised of". Correcting errors such as this is a valuable contribution to WP. Mechanically, no. Correcting, yes. PL290 (talk) 10:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

On what grounds can you consider such a widely attested usage (see the many newspapers cited by Sillyfolkboy and Strad's CGEL quote above) to be an "error"? Or, how would you explain that there are so many sources—all written in formal contexts by literate native English speakers—using that construction, but you won't be able to found that many sources using, e.g., an article after the noun (cat the instead of the cat)? I don't think that just searching for articles using a particular phrase and replacing it, without even knowing anything about their subject matter, is productive; if the phrase is truly incorrect (e.g., cat the), you won't be able to find many articles using it. ― A._di_M.^{2nd Dramaout} (formerly Army1987) 11:44, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

It's a fair question (although I suspect "comprised of" would be a more realistic example than "cat the"!). My use of the word "error" was crass given the preceding discussion, although I myself think of it as an error when I encounter it: as with "comprised of", the grammatical issue, once pointed out, is clear. However, since this is the Manual of Style and not the Manual of Grammar, perhaps my point is better stated this way: the usage in question (a) has been shown to be grammatically dubious, and (b) is damned with faint praise even in those respected references that do "accept" it, where it is described as "not absolutely incorrect" and "frowned upon in some quarters". Suffice it to say, in my opinion, WP should count itself among those quarters where this usage is frowned upon. PL290 (talk) 15:00, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I let through a "due to" today in an FAC. Seemed fine. But I often find it overused or better displaced by "because of". Nothing to get legislative about, though. Tony (talk) 15:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I think "comprised of" is not really a good analogue. There is no dispute over whether that phrase is correct or incorrect English. There has been no movement of acceptability towards it. The MOS of a large number of newspapers and monthly publications specifically point out "comprised of" as something which is incorrect and should not be used. The opinion on it is near universal. Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits)^{Join WikiProject Athletics!} 16:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I might also add that I agree with Shakescene when he said "because of" is "wordy and clumsy", and I think it's a phrase that should be avoided wherever possible. But please don't read that as a tacit endorsement for replacing "due to" with some other phrase - I am still opposed to making boilerplate changes of this nature on a phrase which even the style guides don't universally view as illegitimate. Gatoclass (talk) 18:28, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually I was referring to comparative phrases such as "More because of her beauty than because of her brains" where "due more to" (or in some cases "owing more to") would be briefer and cleaner. I'm not that keen on "because of" because of (there!) the more-common use of "because" as a conjunction subordinating one clause to another. "On account of" is also often inelegant. But that just reinforces Gatoclass's point about boilerplate changes: I'd be just as opposed to mechanical replacements for "because of" or "on account of" or "owing to" without tackling and understanding all the points that a sentence was trying to convey. —— Shakescene (talk) 07:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

“I mean ‘whereupon this usage is frowned’ or… no, that can′t be right either.” D′oh! ⤺[[Special:Contributions/Ms.

45|ms.]]⁴⁵ 19:09, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) For what it's worth, my take as mostly a descriptivist when I can get away with it in a prescriptive process, is that the difference between "because of" and "due to" is real and sourceable on one level, and I don't have any problem with someone being anal about it and changing one to the other (or to some other alternative) in article text. But the "wrong" version is so deeply ingrained today that its "wrongness" is entirely academic, and so MOS shouldn't mention it at all. "To-morrow", "speaketh", two different lower-case "s" characters, and capitalization of all nouns were once "correct" English. Things change, we move on. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 07:44, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

This play is due to Shakespeare.

This play is because of Shakespeare.

I hope any codification of a rule prescribing "because of" instead of "due to" will be stated in such a way that hasty editors won't start citing it to justify the particular rephrasing above. Wikipedia actually does have editors as thoughtless as that; I've run into a number of them. There are even particular articles that attract them. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Credit for this idea is due to John Xmith.

...but certainly credit is not because of John Xmith, at least in the sense intended. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Ensuring articles are suitable for an international audience

This is a request that the style guidelines are updated to address the problem of authors assuming that national institutions are known to readers in another country. The author of this note has noted a quantity of articles referring to US institutions but which do not mention these are based in the USA, for instance institutions named along the lines of "The National XYZ Authority" and similar.

The problem is not confined to US authors.

Internationally famous national institutions such as the CIA probably do not need the qualifying information but the "Department of XYZ" most certainly does need qualifying.

The author of this note finds a lack of national 'tagging' irritating as it is taken to be indicative of a geocentric mindset and therefore however unintentionally a form of arrogance.

The argument could of course be extended, the author cites mention of national bodies and organisations since this is the one he encounters most often. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.145.49.97 (talk) 00:03, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Point taken. But I believe it to be a content issue outside the scope of MOS. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 00:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

This issue probably doesn't fit MoS as such, but could raise this at Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. 78.145.49.97 did not provide any examples of articles where this problem has occurred; perhaps this ip user could just get WP:BOLD and add the needed qualifiers and/or article links. Dl2000 (talk) 01:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

So you're recommending spelling out "U.S. Department of Agriculture" rather than saying "Department of Agriculture"? If so, I agree. Articles on general topics should not assume any particular country's foundation. However, I have to concur with the others that it's not necessarily a job for the MoS. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:44, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I think there are places to spell out "U.S. Department of Agriculture", and places not to. In articles where it's blindingly obvious that we're not talking about the Chilean (or even Pennsylvanian) ag dept, it could come off as a bit repetitive to prepend U.S. to a whole bunch of department names. This is one of the relatively few legitimate uses for pipes, to be able to say something like [[United States Department of Agriculture|Department of Agriculture]], in contexts where United States is obvious and unhelpful. --Trovatore (talk) 03:03, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Well if the article is about a specific country then of course repeating that country's name would be unnecessary, but if the article is about, say chicken farming in general, then we would need to specify "U.S. Department of Agriculture takes this policy but the Mexican Department of Agriculture takes that one." Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Robert's Rules of Order

Would this discussion page benefit from following Robert's Rules of Order? -- Wavelength (talk) 22:26, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Probably not, because democracy (voting) isn't the same thing as consensus. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 22:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

No way. Rules are not allowed in the system that governs English Wikipedia. Nevertheless, it would be the perfect proposal to make in exactly 92 days.—Finell 23:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

It has been said that Wikipedia decisions are made by consensus, but that is not clear to me. Can anyone provide links to three (or even just one or two) MOS discussions where decisions were reached by consensus? -- Wavelength (talk) 07:03, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

See 111 pages of archives, linked to at the top of this page. If you are having cognitive dissonance about the meaning of "consensus" at WP (hint: it does not mean "100% unanimity", nor does it mean "I want this change really bad and will never let the issue die", nor various other things than "most editors, who care to comment, agreeing"), try Wikipedia talk:Consensus, since defining consensus and its operations on WP is outside the scope of the MOS. Another way of putting it: Requiring "Robert's Rules" at this or any other talk page on WP would require a change to site-wide policy at WP:CONSENSUS, since editing procedures and dispute resolution do not change from page to page. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 11:30, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

My question about Robert's Rules of Order has not been resolved, and I am not in consensus with the tag stating that it has been resolved.

Your reference to the pages of archives does not answer my question. I am asking for links to specific discussions where decisions were reached by consensus.

According to Wikipedia, "cognitive dissonance is an uncomfortable feeling caused by holding two contradictory ideas simultaneously." That is not my situation; I have no clear idea about the meaning of "consensus" at Wikipedia.

-- Wavelength (talk) 18:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Following what Wavelength says, I have removed the "resolved" tag from this section. There are serious issues to address here about procedure, entwined with those about consensus, regardless of what we think about Robert's Rules themselves, literally. Wavelength has pointed out at my talkpage that long discussion at WT:CONSENSUS addresses the failure of WP:CONSENSUS to provide definitions. This too is serious, and a challenge for us at WT:MOS. Whatever policy has been been determined at WP:CONSENSUS, only generalities are set out there for work on guidelines like MOS: the particular need for stability, for involvement of more editors (and more experienced editors), and for slow deliberate process. But we are the ones to fill in the gaps. Again, we are in uncharted waters, and must be bold mapmakers.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 20:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I looked for experienced editors among Wikipedians, and this is the closest that I could find.

Category:Wikipedians by profession has links to the following categories.

Category:Wikipedian consultants (non-specific) (22 pages)
Category:Wikipedian linguists (184 pages)
Category:Wikipedian playwrights (15 pages)
Category:Wikipedian poets (10 pages)
Category:Wikipedian publishers (4 pages)
Category:Wikipedian translators (135 pages)
Category:Wikipedian professional writers (5 pages)

-- Wavelength (talk) 01:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

"From" and "between"

One of my routine edits, both with and without AWB, is to change "from 1939–1941" to "from 1939 to 1941", and similarly for "between" instead of "from", and for a (wrong) hyphen instead of a dash. But this edit removed that rule. I don't remember any discussion on that point, despite much discussion of dash spacing. So do you still recommend "from" and "between" edits on this issue? In either case, good riddance to the phrase "when the nearby wording demands it", which can be paraphrased as "you know you should write it my way, so explanation is really unnecessary", and wasn't written with the editor in mind at all. Art LaPella (talk) 00:13, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The instruction "Ranges should not mix prepositions and dashes" covers this case, doesn't it? Ozob (talk) 00:29, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

You're right; sorry. Art LaPella (talk) 02:47, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

AWB

I used my WP:AWB selections to apply the more automatable parts of the Manual of Style to itself. I didn't save the changes I found because of edit conflicts, and anyway you might want a chance to argue about it. These are the same rules I apply to other articles, so if I misunderstand your rules here, I misunderstand them elsewhere. Here's what I found:

WP:MOS#Notes number 2 says "1 August 2002 :", with a space before the colon. WP:MOS#Colons doesn't say if that is OK, but Colon (punctuation)#Spacing says it's not OK, since a thin space is not the issue here.
The forbidden phrase "of course" occurs four times. Unlike my previous comment about "clearly", these uses of "of course" fit the rationale given at MOS:NOTED: "of course ... make[s] presumptions about readers' knowledge, and call[s] into question the reason for including the information in the first place."
WP:ELLIPSIS says "exclamation marks/points". Perhaps this should be "exclamation marks or points" or "exclamation marks or exclamation points" according to WP:SLASH. A better application of WP:SLASH is at WP:MOS#Unit symbols and abbreviations: "metre/meter", which could easily be changed to "metre or meter".
Perhaps we shouldn't bother with a WP:COMMENT that only shows in edit mode, but WP:SLASH does say "(e.g. Dr. Spock)…", with a forbidden "Pre-composed ellipsis character" (see WP:ELLIPSIS). WP:ELLIPSIS also says there should be a space before the ellipsis. Although a parenthesis precedes it, the ellipsis isn't inside the parentheses.
WP:MOS#Large numbers says "£100 million" without an nbsp, although WP:MOS#Non-breaking spaces says nbsp should be used "in other places where displacement might be disruptive to the reader, such as £11 billion ...".
The Manual of Style includes "you" and "your" 10 times, not counting example texts such as the Voltaire quote about defending your right to say it. However, it could be argued that the Manual of Style is an exception to WP:YOU because it has no practical alternative to addressing the editor as "you". Art LaPella (talk) 05:22, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Art. All fixed now! Some of these points ("of course", "you") are indeed not an issue for MOS, so I have left those as they were.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 07:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Gender-neutrality & pronouns

Instead of haggling over what it says here, substantively, I think it would be far better to have the consensus discussion on that be at the main page about it, and we should only summarize it here. There's a danger, otherwise, that what we'd end up agreeing on here will diverge from the main guideline on the topic. (I'm pretty sure there's consensus there, BTW, to not use singular "they" in articles, unless that's changed recently.) – SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 06:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Convenience link to the page SMcCandlish is talking about: Wikipedia talk:Gender-neutral language. ― A._di_M.^{2nd Dramaout} (formerly Army1987) 11:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I looked it over and it actually doesn't tell users not to use the singular they. It tells them that "you" and "one" can be undesirable but lists "they" up top with pluralizing. It is only the MoS itself that tells Wikipedia editors not to use the singular they.

However, is this a problem? The essay is written descriptively rather than prescriptively and it's explicitly marked as not part of the MoS. Perhaps the only thing that should be changed is the way the MoS links to it (and this does probably mean that the MoS should explicitly state Wikipedia's rules about gender-neutral language rather than relying on the essay to do it). Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:46, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Hmm. Well, I think it is is important that we retain a MOS "no" on singular they. Unlike Spivak pronouns which are rarely inserted by editors, singular they is actually quite rampant. I fix cases of it all the time. So even if we ditch most of that wording and just link to the gender neutrality page (which should be updated to discuss singular they), that one bit at least should remain part of MOS itself. – SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 22:46, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't like using "they" for "he or she" myself (although there are no graceful alternatives), but the usage goes back centuries; it's definitely a matter of personal style and should not be a matter for Manual of Style rules, nor for random edits by those who aren't otherwise involved in an article. Wikipedia is not a tablet upon which one may institute personal stylistic preferences, even if they're ones I happen to share. —— Shakescene (talk) 23:22, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't know — singular they just looks really really bad. Is this a legacy of 19th-century prescriptive grammarians just making things up? Sure, fine. Today it looks bad. I'm worried about Wikipedia's rep if we let those stand. --Trovatore (talk) 23:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia's rep is at far greater risk from other things. I don't mind anyone doing what I'd probably do myself, and changing those singular "they's" to something else [although it's far from the greatest illiteracy you'll find in Wikipedia], but the Manual of Style is already far too long for any average editor to learn or master, and this kind of point probably doesn't belong. This is a perfect example of the kind of thing that I think should go into a non-prescriptive guide to usage, rather than the Manual of Style which no matter what anyone says or wishes is used much more as a Body of Law, enforced by 'bots and Featured item criteria. There is a need for a much smaller and more directive set of (flexible) rules, which can be easily read and assimilated, for important, non-cosmetic, non-aesthetic problems of clarity, ambiguity, accessibility, gratuitous insult, libel and actual harm. This (ugly or not) isn't one of them. More below. —— Shakescene (talk) 01:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

[Outdent] This talkpage is the proper location for deciding the question, since the relevant guideline is located in MOS. I have reverted the prohibition of singular they, and advise others to do the same until there is adequate discussion and a well-founded consensus. In its current edition Chicago reversed its decision explicitly to permit such a they; but it does not now prohibit it, only advising that the text be re-worded, which "takes thought and some hard work" (Chicago, 5.204). That approach is increasingly thought to be old-fashioned; more guides now bow to common practice (or "rampant" practice, if that is your take on it!), and accept singular they in edited text. New Hart's (p. 27) rules that this matter is beyond its scope, but notes that singular they is becoming generally accepted in speech and writing. Please discuss before changing; and since the matter is important and controversial, a consensus needs to be ironed out with diligence and wide consultation.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 23:46, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

[See also my comment above.] Here is what H.W. Fowler himself said about the problem in 1926 in section 11 of the entry for "Number" in A Dictionary of Modern English Usage (original punctuation preserved insofar as possible):

“

...Each & the rest are all singular: that is undisputed; in a perfect language there would exist pronouns & possessives that were of as doubtful gender as they & yet were, like they, singular; i.e. it would have words meaning him-or-her, himself-or-herself, his-or-her. But, just as French lacks our power of distinguishing (without additional words) between his, her & its, so we lack the French power of saying in one word his-or-her. There are three makeshifts :— A, as anybody can see for himself or herself ; B, as anybody can see for themselves ; & C, as anybody can see for himself. No-one who can help it chooses A ; it is correct, & sometimes necessary, but it is so clumsy as to be ridiculous except where explicitness is urgent, and usually sounds like a piece of pedantic humour. B is the popular solution ; it sets the literary man's teeth on edge & he exerts himself to give the same meaning in some entirely different way if he is not prepared, as he usually is, to risk C ; but it should be recorded that the OED, which quotes examples under every, they, and themselves, refrains from any condemnation. C is here recommended. It involves the convention that where the matter of sex is not conspicuous or important he and his shall be allowed to represent a person instead of a man, or say a man (homo) instead of a man (vir). ...

”

But Fowler's solution won't work if you don't consider he, his and him to be gender-neutral pronouns. By the way, Fowler's parallel article on "they" (1) says

“

...at any rate the OED quotes examples from Fielding (Everyone in the house were in their beds), Goldsmith, Sydney Smith, Thackeray (A person can't help their birth), Bagehot (Nobody in their senses), & Bernard Shaw. It also says nothing more severe of the use than it is ‘Not favoured by grammarians’ ; that the grammarians are likely, nevertheless, to have their way on this point is suggested by the old-fashioned sound of the Fielding & Thackeray sentences quoted ; few good modern writers would flout the grammarians so conpicuously.

”

—— Shakescene (talk) 01:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Hideous constructions like "it is correct, & sometimes necessary" is a good reason not to cite Fowler. He wrote three or (depending how you reckon) four generations ago, and the language has changed considerably since his time. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 20:17, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

What's hideous about "it is correct, and sometimes necessary, ..."? The ampersands are to save space in the book (usually not a problem in Wikipedia). I don't appeal to Fowler as any kind of absolute authority (I still haven't figured out his precise objection to "due to"), but for informational purposes as the most conservative of currently-consulted undogmatic authorities (as opposed to, say, Samuel Johnson). It's his analysis that's interesting, not his preferred solution, which won't work well 80 years on. —— Shakescene (talk) 22:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Most of the examples cited here sound either very stuffy or very odd to my ears. I use the singular they myself when I'm speaking out loud, but it's not suitable for formal writing. We should keep the current wording advising against it to maintain Wikipedia's encyclopedic tone. The question, then, is this: Does the advice "Use an encyclopedic tone" convey the idea that the singular they is to be avoided without any further instruction?

I am in agreement with Shakescene that if the length of the MoS is to be reduced, it should be by reducing the number of rules as opposed to some other means. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:55, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I strongly favor gender-neutral language. However, incorrect grammar—a third person plural pronoun for a third person singular antecedent—is not necessary to achieve it. Since this particular blunder is creeping into the English language, and into Wikipedia, the MOS should prohibit it with unmistakable clarity. Simple rewriting usually eliminates the problem, and the occasional he or she (and the like) is tolerable; A firefighter must be brave, but they should not be ... isn't. Since many students use Wikipedia, Wikipedia should exemplify good English grammar and usage.—Finell 02:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy to use singular they myself in informal writing (e.g. on Wikipedia talk pages) and I don't think it's accurate to call it a blunder in that context. And if it's creeping into the language, it's been doing so for hundreds of years; as our articule singular they makes clear, it's very far from being a new usage. But I agree that it should not be used in our articles and that the MoS should explicitly say so. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:10, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Good enough for Shakespeare and Jane Austen. I use it in WP articles (unless there's a very easy way out). It's far better than rampant sexism or clutter, usually the only alternatives. Read or listen to Prof. Geoffrey Pullum on ABC Radio National. Tony (talk) 02:57, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

That might have been a good argument to make in the 19th century, when the grammarians who inform our current ear were making their pronouncements. For that matter, you can make it now, when you're creating primary and secondary sources.

But this is an encyclopedia, and it is not within our remit to reform what counts as high-register English. Which singular they simply does not. The long-term trend does seem to be that it eventually may, but I don't think we want to be ahead of that curve. As matters stand it makes us just look sloppy. --Trovatore (talk) 03:10, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Finell: Clarify something for us. What is this "incorrect grammar" of which you speak? As discussed by top academic linguists here, you in place of the standard singular thou was once unknown in English. You was originally only plural. (Compare the vicissitudes of Italian Lei, French vous, and so on and on.) Those linguists do not speak of "incorrect grammar". Why should we? It is not engraved on the firmament that they must remain a plural pronoun, any more than you must. And the fact is, they is changing ineluctably before our eyes. It is bound to stay on course for acceptance. If the change were unconscious, quirky, or without sound motivation, we should resist it. But it is conscious, mainstream, and well motivated as answering an urgent need. It is not, therefore, simply a "blunder" and is not "creeping" silently as a cancer in the tissues of our tongue. I'm all for a healthy conservatism: but some slow steady changes are as worthwhile as they are inevitable. They earn our respect and our assent.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 03:04, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

(Belatedly interjected, but not to be ignored) I was referring specifically to 3rd person singular and plural: he/she/it vs they; him/her/it vs them; and their possessive forms. Further, I was referring to a specific antecedent noun (the doctor, author, or a person's name). Is it really correct grammar to say, Jim is smart, but they are not athletic? How about: Is Pat male or female? Are they married? I am not talking about indefinite nouns like anyone versus everyone, which are essentially synonymous (although they are deliberately inflected to be singular versus plural). The Brits may be more comfortable with using they for both because they already treat collective singular nouns like Parliament as plural. I am willing to reconsider this when he and she become as archaic as thou.—Finell 22:28, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

What's my punishment if I ignore it? — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 03:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I roughly agree with Geoff Pullum (see Tony's link): it is completely acceptable when the antecedent refers to several people at once (e.g., "everybody"), acceptable but informal when it refers to an unspecified person, and incorrect when it refers to one specific individual. ― A._di_M.^{2nd Dramaout} (formerly Army1987) 12:24, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Noetica is correct that the singular they has been around for a long time. It has still not caught on in formal circles. We must write this MoS to the language that we have, not the language that we used to have or that wish we had or that we think we might have one day.

While one can, as Finell does, point out the ways in which the singular they crosses the lines of what's correct, that's not the only reason to advise against its use on Wikipedia. It's not that it's incorrect. It's that it's informal. "Hey, dude!" isn't incorrect, but it's too informal for an encyclopedia. The same goes for "ain't" when it means "am not": not incorrect, but not ideal either. Similarly, the singular they should be reserved for other contexts. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:28, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

What would be the best way to go about this? We certainly don't want to penalize people who write original content using the singular they or—take a look at the "due to->because of" conversation—create rule-lawyering pitfalls in either direction. Should we say something like, "Wikipedia's preferred methods of avoiding gender-neutral language are pluralizing [example], rewording [example], and using 'he or she' (example)"? A gentle touch might be best. Perhaps words like "avoid" or "is not preferred" should apply. Does anyone know of any similar cases? Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:39, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Trovatore, so Jane Austen was "sloppy", was she? If fusty old Fowler 80 years ago was accepting singular they as an option for writers, who are we to start imposing judgement in the 21st century on what is correct or incorrect? Singular they is an old solution to the fact that the language in all registers was not engineered to cope smoothly with the large-scale power shift from males to females over the past few centuries. Darkfrog, have you read the ABC transcription I linked to above? Austen, Thakeray, Wilde, Wharton, Auden ... the list goes on. "No one should have to climb all those stairs at that age, should he or she?"

Next, we'll be told not to write "It is me"—in some people's grammar, "me" is ungrammatical, but that is just too easy to assert (try "It am I" if we're going to argue about nominative and accusative). Try "The artists who(m) Stalin punished formed an underground opposition". Who or whom? We are guilty of ungrammaticality when being grammatical, it seems. Every day. Tony (talk) 10:58, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually fusty old Fowler had a few things going for him. For one, he often managed to be witty when uttering his pronouncements. For another, he had no time for such pomposities as "albeit" (a word much loved by en:WP editors). And, as we see, he wasn't as daft as most other grammarians of his day when it came to singular "they". ¶ Trovatore above: I don't know — singular they just looks really really bad. Is this a legacy of 19th-century prescriptive grammarians just making things up? Sure, fine. Today it looks bad. It looks bad to you. It doesn't look bad to me at all. ¶ Darkfrog24 above: [singular they is] not suitable for formal writing. We should keep the current wording advising against it to maintain Wikipedia's encyclopedic tone. Let's do some thirty-second, no-budget corpus linguistics, shall we? I tried googlescholaring for "each participant chose their". There's a pile of hits, including:

"Each participant chose their own tasks" (Brain Injury, 2005)
"each participant chose their own pseudonym" (International Journal of Early Childhood, 2007)
"each participant chose their top three actions" (CLIMAS, the Univ of Arizona)

Or must en:Wikipedia, the world's best-loved source of information on Ashlee Simpson songs and Pokémon, assert the validity of some grammatical rule that concerns neither L1 speakers of English nor the editors of peer-reviewed academic journals? -- Hoary (talk) 11:51, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Tony, the Jane Austen example is of a character speaking out loud in an informal context. As a novelist, of course Jane Austen would write the words that her characters would actually speak. Most good novelists do. When uneducated characters in Austen speak, they speak in their own accents and with their own word choice. Yes, this fellow provides other examples, but they don't address the issue of whether or not "they" is sufficiently formal right now. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:14, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Who's "this fellow"? If he's Pullum, he's merely the coauthor of what is the most comprehensive and intelligent reference grammar of English, by a wide margin. Singular "they" appears to be fine for scientific journals. What do you want, the word of some "language pundit" that the journals may publish what they anyway publish? Or would you just like more examples? If the latter, here are hits at Google scholar for "subject selected their". -- Hoary (talk) 15:12, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I can't see anything wrong with "they" when the antecedent is singular exclusively ~~due to~~because of a quirk of English grammar (e.g. "Everybody loves their county"), but when it's also logically singular ("A friend of mine told me that they ...") it sounds too informal-ish to me. YMMV. ― A._di_M.^{2nd Dramaout} (formerly Army1987) 20:13, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

[outdent] Wikipedia is not a journal or novel. Journals do silly things all the time. The American Archaeological Association citation style calls for not italicizing book or journal titles, for example, and of course American archaeologists thereby don't italicize them, but this is not a reason to stop doing it here, including in archaeology articles about sites and figures in the US. We are not bound by that or any other style guide, including Pullum's published one and Austen's inferred one, especially where they don't agree with others. Re: a comment above: No one said anything about "penalizing" anyone. No is chased off Wikipedia for any MOS transgression, so let's not make the issue emotional for no reason. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 20:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

PS: It is of no particular significance, nor surprising, that some scholars use constructions like "each participant chose their" in journals (i.e., pretty darned formal) writing). Being scholars does not make them [plural they!] scholars of English writing, and even journal editors may be far more concerned with the views being expounded and the rigor of the science behind them than in the quality of the writing. The point's really moot, because there is no rational reason for the construction not to be corrected to "all participants chose their", "each participant chose [a, some, no, whatever]" or some other construction entirely, e.g. "[something here]" was chosen by each particpant" and so on. There is no case of "singular they" that cannot be rewritten, and virtually all cases can be rewritten multiple ways, some natural, other awkward. Singular they is an informal shorthand. It's one I'm a huge fan of, just not in formal writing. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 20:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I actually do think that consulting style guides is a good idea, so long as we understand that they may differ and may reflect the specific agendas of the organizations that write them. Novels, however, are not usually a good choice.

Perhaps we could say something like, "Wikipedia's preferred means of avoiding gender bias are pluralizing [example], rewording [example] or using 'he or she' [example]. Because the singular they [example] can come off as informal in some contexts, please use it only when the aforementioned three techniques would be unwieldy or awkward." That oughtta' prevent any witch hunts! Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:24, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Let's keep it simple and just say, "Don't" (it might be phrased, Avoid the temptation to ...). What you are calling "Wikipedia's preferred means" includes (include?) every possibility except singular they. Indeed, "rewording" by itself covers all the possibilities. Further, I reject the idea that all other solutions are ever so unwieldy or awkward as to justify singular they. When I copy edit away every singular they that I encounter when I am "on duty", I usually rewrite a sentence or paragraph in such a way that the question of whether to use they doesn't arise—that is, no one reading the rewritten text will think that it was written that way to avoid they. Pluralization is not usually my first choice, although it is usually the easiest way out.—Finell 06:47, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Sure; I consult (and, here, cite) style guides all the time. They can be informative, just not hand-tying. Something like that would work for me, but I believve "means" is singular here ("a means to an end"), and "come off" is too informal. :-) — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 20:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

This is another one of those decisions that we're going to need to record somewhere. Otherwise some petty grammarian will come along and change it on the grounds of singular they being "wrong". Myself, I don't like the sound of the singular they very much, and I think it's usually out of place in an encyclopedia—but we need to record somewhere our consensus that it's not "wrong" (and also the consensus that it's not out of place on Wikipedia; a consensus which I quibble with but bow to). Ozob (talk) 05:43, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe there's a consensus that it's not wrong. It's not wrong in ordinary discourse, no; we can probably get a consensus on that. In my opinion, when trying to write in an encyclopedic register, it is indeed an error. Errors of register are still errors. --Trovatore (talk) 09:25, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Of course one could always innovate a small orthographic reform: spell the singular thay, thaem, thair, and leave the plural they, them, their for plural usage. (It solves the problem of ambiguity, at least.) -- Evertype·✆ 10:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

if orthographic innovations are wanted, xe and s/he already exist. meanwhile, like Trovatore, i don't see any consensus in this discussion; and i think this is one of those questions that needs wider discussion. for the record, i wouldn't support "banning" the singular they (particularly since it occurs frequently in direct quotes), but i personally usually manage to rephrase things (outside of quotes, of course!) to avoid it. Sssoul (talk) 11:23, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Use made-up words and made-up spellings? Absolutely not. The singular they might be too informal, but "thay" and "xe" aren't proper words at all. Wikipedia is not the place to invent new words. If someone else does (and people have) and then they catch on (but they haven't) then Wikipedia should be changed to reflect current, correct English. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:03, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

SMcCandlish: Journals do silly things all the time. The American Archaeological Association citation style calls for not italicizing book or journal titles, for example, and of course American archaeologists thereby don't italicize them, but this is not a reason to stop doing it here, including in archaeology articles about sites and figures in the US. We are not bound by that or any other style guide, including Pullum's published one [...] ¶ Nothing silly about the American Archaeological Association's citation style. It's just ... their citation style (and incidentally the Guardian agrees with it). It doesn't attempt to pontificate about morphosyntax, merely about orthography, typography and so forth. I'm not aware of any guide to "style" (in the Chicago sense) that adds pontifications about grammar -- other than the latest version of Chicago itself, in an ill-informed section that's extraneous to the meat of the book. ¶ And Pullum, whatever else he has done, has not written or published any manual of style. ¶ Evertype: i think this is one of those questions that needs wider discussion. We have a dead horse here. Bring in more floggers! -- Hoary (talk) 12:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Hoary, it's a nice little piece by Pullum at your "ill-informed" link. However, I have to point out a folly: "When the University of Chicago Press started on the revisions that led to CMS 15, they could have lifted the phone and made an on-campus call to the late, great James McCawley,...". Talking to the dead? There are better ways to note an intervening death.

And: "[he agrees, like every other grammarian, that the misnamed "split infinitive" is grammatical, but] thinks that the adverb is "splitting the verb" in this construction (it isn't; it's between two separate words)". Um ... to have is one item—a verb—even though it comprises two words. (PS I'd be a goose to object to splitting it, and I don't unless it's clumsy.) Tony (talk) 09:14, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

In my view to have is not any more of "one item" than the man is. It is more an issue of what one means by "verb", but calling "to do" rather than just "do" the verb makes it slightly more complicated to explain why there's no to before love in "How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb", and no to before die in "a reason to live or die". ― A._di_M.^{2nd Dramaout} (formerly Army1987) 20:24, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

That's ellipsis at play, of the word "to": "to live and [to] die". "The man" is very much one item: a nominal group. See Halliday. Tony (talk) 20:56, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

It is in that sense (I reckon that what Halliday calls a nominal group is the same thing as what the CGEL calls a noun phrase, isn't it?), but would you consider the bad in the bad man to "split a noun"? BTW, in the CGEL's (and hence, Pullum's) analysis, "imperative, subjunctive, and infinitival are clause constructions, not inflectional forms of the verb. To in [iiia] is a VP subordinator, not part of the verb." (Example [iiia] is I advise you [to take great care].) Of course, in such an analysis it makes very little sense to claim that adverbs "split verbs". (And you can analyse "to stop worrying and love the bomb" as an infinitival clause composed by the subordinator to and the verb phrase stop worrying and love the bomb, without recurring to ellipsis.) ― A._di_M.^{2nd Dramaout} (formerly Army1987) 22:44, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Erm, just to respond to Sssoul and Darkfrog above: "xe" and "s/he" may exist. I have not seen the former, and do not know how I am to pronounce either: is the former [xiː], the latter [ʃɪˈhiː]? The suggested "they, thaem, thair" of course already exist in the spoken language; it would be a mere orthographic distinction to indicate the singular—so it'd be wrong to say that they were "made-up words". There are even attested spellings: c1375 Cursor M. 2243 (Fairf.) "Quen thay..had fest þe gronde, þe werke thai raised." a1584 MONTGOMERIE Cherrie & Slae 541 "Thay get na credit quhair we come." 1563 WINET Four Scoir Thre Quest. liv, "A man or woman being lang absent fra thair party." Alas, "thaem" is not in fact attested, though theim and thaim and thayme are. -- Evertype·✆ 10:28, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Would "words that haven't caught on in standard English" suit you better? Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:26, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I suppose.

Hoary, in the absence of a spelling reform which could ensure that a singular reference was intended (not unusual; compare German which capitalizes Sie 'they' when it means 'you') I think the solution for the MoS is obvious: Since the use of the singular "they" in encyclopaedic text is disputed, the recommendation should be to avoid its use by re-casting sentences which make use of it. -- Evertype·✆ 10:32, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

To take us back 50 years, yes. Tony (talk) 20:56, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

What axe are you grinding here? No manual of style recommends "the singular they" in formal English, and I've seen no compelling argument that such a form should be introduced as normative in the WIkipedia. What you mean by "taking us back 50 years" is quite unclear to me. I was born less than 50 years ago and while I may use the singular they in speech (doubtless I have though my speech is fairly conservative and educated) I would not use it in encycolopaedic writing. If 1960 is too archaic for you... what is an appropriate date? 1970? 1980? 1990? -- Evertype·✆ 22:51, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Evertype: "No manual of style recommends 'the singular they' in formal English." A strong, and perhaps overstated, claim. I can readily find you several printed sources that accept singular they, in writing generally. What counts as a "manual of style", here? Do guides to usage count, and guides to writing? Many of these are at least sympathetic to judicious use of singular they. Just one example:

Despite continuing complaints from purists, most grammarians now accept the compromise as the only practical way out of the problem. (Collins Good Writing Guide, Graham King, 2003, p. 60)

This assertion is amply borne out in discussions at the acclaimed academic linguistics blog Language Log:

The argument was settled long ago: singular they has routinely been used throughout the history of English, by all the best writers, until certain subcases were artificially turned into "errors" by self-appointed experts. Successively less discriminating pseudo-authorities then generalized the proscription in successively sillier ways, although they have largely been ignored by the users of the language. (" 'Singular they' mailbag", Mark Liberman, 2006; several other threads from that site are relevant)

You write, Evertype: "I've seen no compelling argument that such a form should be introduced as normative in the Wikipedia." I wonder what you mean by "compelling argument". Do you mean no argument that would convince you, or no argument that would compel rational assent generally? The sources I cite above (and there are more) would readily furnish the material for an argument of this latter kind.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 04:08, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Evertype, The EU Style Guide says, "It is also acceptable to use forms such as everyone has their own views on this (see usage note for they in the Concise Oxford Dictionary)." ― A._di_M.^{2nd Dramaout} (formerly Army1987) 20:48, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I (continue to) concur with what appears to be the majority opinion here which gives acceptance, however regretfully, to permitting the use of singular ‘they’. It seems to me that if we are to go with the use preferred by formal style guides of the past century and rule out its usage, then we’re likewise obligated to fall back on the employment of generic masculine pronouns – which obviates accommodation of any sort of gender-neutral approach. This is the same horns-of-a-dilemma situation we faced back in 2007 when the issue was first seriously addressed, given that artificial constructs were generally abhorred. The lack of a formal, commonly accepted gender-neutral singular possessive pronoun is an unfortunate aspect of English, but one we have to live with. As has been pointed out by several editors above, it has been an enduring problem that has enduringly been somewhat satisfied with singular ‘they’ and I do not see sufficient consensus for its firm exclusion among style guides or commenting editors. Askari Mark (Talk) 05:38, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

The "unmarked" masculine pronouns, used generically, are of course not literally gender-neutral, because "gender" is a grammatical term. But they can be used in a sex-neutral manner. I don't see anything inherently wrong with doing that; I do not buy the claim that it is automatically sexist, something that Tony does not seem to think he has to prove.

It may be the case, unfortunately, that the sex-neutral masculine pronouns cannot be employed today without pushing too many people's buttons. But singular "they" is going to push a lot of buttons as well. I think we're probably stuck with the awkward workarounds that don't involve singular "they"; the latter just still just sounds awful in formal prose. --Trovatore (talk) 00:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the distinction between "can't be used without pushing people's buttons" and "automatically sexist" that you are trying to make. If one knows that non-gender-neutral wording will push people's buttons, and one uses it anyway, one is being sexist. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

No, that's not true. Others' reaction to my choice of language is their responsibility, not mine. --Trovatore (talk) 00:56, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

That's not the only meaning of gender, and it has not been for much longer than Wikipedia has existed. Have you never filled in a form in which you're asked for your gender? ― A._di_M.^{2nd Dramaout} (formerly Army1987) 01:34, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't like that usage but I recognize its existence. That wasn't really my point. My point is that I can't really claim the unmarked masculine pronouns are gender-neutral, because in grammar (which is more or less what we're talking about, after all), the word gender retains its older sense and is recognized that way. But to the extent that you use the word to mean "sex", then yes, such pronouns can be used in a "gender"-neutral way. --Trovatore (talk) 01:39, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that's actually true. One can have the intent of using them in a gender-neutral way, but it is impossible to control the intents of one's readers, many of whom will likely have their impressions of the subject colored by the pronoun one chooses to use. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Vide supra. --Trovatore (talk) 01:48, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Quoting Pullum, "If it were really true that 'he' could be neutral with regard to the sex of the person referred to, you should be able to say, 'Was it your father or your mother who hurt himself?'" ― A._di_M.^{2nd Dramaout} (formerly Army1987) 01:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Not all conventions work the same way in all possible constructions. --Trovatore (talk) 01:48, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Trovatore, I appreciate the fine irony that the technical term encompasses a grammatically incorrect formulation, but that’s the English language, n’est-ce pas? Having some degree of familiarity with several languages, I wish it still retained some of the useful features of its antecedents (like distinctive singular and plural forms of ‘you’), but we have what we have ... until it changes. Like you, I personally have no problems with sex-neutral masculine pronouns, but the whole issue was originally raised (in 2007) amidst the question of to what degree and how we accommodate “gender-neutral” formulations – which to date lack any generally accepted approach. The choices fall to a continued imposition of sex-neutral masculine pronouns (the very point of objection by those who find it a priori sexist), innovate with some artificial constructions (which have been overwhelmingly deplored), or else a combination of careful avoidance of sex-neutral masculine pronouns with the substitution of colloquially accepted (or at least tolerated) informal adaptations. There is no choice that will please all, so we are faced with choices that offend, respectively, those who consider the traditional formal usage “sexist”, artificialities objectionable (and sometimes unpronounceable) to most of even the small number of people who have even encountered them, or grammarians. Doing the least damage would seem to call for weighing which offendable group is smaller, gender-issue sensitives or grammarians. With respect to singular ‘they’, I suspect that it is acceptable (or tolerable) to a far number of literate readers and writers than there are strict grammarians who object ... and English is a living language, after all. Askari Mark (Talk) 02:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I actually agreed, as you may have noticed, that it is probably impossible to use sex-neutral masculine pronouns here without undesirable consequences. I think that's a bit unfortunate but I accept the fact.

But I don't buy the claim that this makes singular "they" acceptable. Singular "they" is acceptable in a lot of contexts. But not for encyclopedic writing. It may be someday; it isn't now. Just sounds bad. Whether the reasons for it to sound bad are good ones or not — that doesn't really matter for the purposes of the current discussion, just as it doesn't really matter for those purposes whether the non-sex-referring masculine pronouns are really sexist. --Trovatore (talk) 02:34, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

In this, at least, we are in complete agreement. Singular they comes off as too informal (to my ear, at least) to be encyclopedic, and the perception that the third-person masculine singular pronoun is sexist is enough to make it problematic as well regardless of whether it is intended that way. Both usages should be eschewed. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I concur with David Eppstein and Trovatore, on both points. Some editors will always wig out about something like this, but the answer is always the same: Rewrite to avoid the awkward construction. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 03:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The English language has no such thing as a grammatical gender, so there's no ambiguity in using "gender" to mean "social role normally connected with sex" in discussions about the English grammar. The only difference between "he" and "she" is their meaning; grammatically, they work the same and you can't make a grammatical sentence ungrammatical by exchanging them (but you can make it false if the antecedent is the wrong gender). Also note that grammatical gender needn't have anything to do with sex: in Italian guardia is feminine and soprano is masculine, in German Mädchen is feminine, and there have languages with a "animated" and an "inanimate" gender but no "masculine" or "feminine" ones, or even more complicated systems than that. ― A._di_M.^{2nd Dramaout} (formerly Army1987) 21:12, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The unmarked masculine pronouns do not refer to sex, and need not refer to social roles either, but are still grammatically masculine. There are other examples in English of gendered pronouns that have no direct relation to sex (ships and countries as she, "the enemy" as he — say, is that last one an example of anti-male bias :-) ? ) Whether this constitutes "grammatical gender" is a matter of interpretation, I suppose. Either way it sounds odd to say that grammatically masculine pronouns are gender-neutral, but they can nevertheless be sex-neutral. --Trovatore (talk) 21:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I do not think the MoS should be proscribing the singular they. Tony (talk) 07:09, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Proscribing? I'm not a big fan of the MOS proscribing anything. Let me put my view this way: The singular they is not appropriate in encyclopedic writing, wherein it constitutes an error of register if not strictly of syntax. The MOS should say so. --Trovatore (talk) 07:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Forgive my brashness, but "wherein" is probably considered inappropriate in WP's register. (Are you a Hallidayan? Where did you pick up the term "register"? It's part of SFL, isn't it?) Concerning singular they—like many grammatical constructions it should be used judiciously; in this case, used only where different wording is clunky or finally recognised as obscenely sexist (the generic male, for example). Tony (talk) 08:55, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Forgive my answering the learned editor on another editor's behalf. Halliday himself acknowledges that the term is not originally Hallidayan, though it certainly figures prominently in his work:

The term "register" was first used in this sense [...] by Reid (1956); the concept was taken up and used by John Ure (Ure and Ellis 1972), and interpreted within Hill's (1958) "institutional linguistic" framework by Halliday et al. (1964 [=The Linguistic Sciences and Language Teaching]). (Halliday, Language as Social Semiotic, 1978, p. 110)

Reid's priority is duly recorded in OED, at "register, n.¹":

[8]d. Linguistics. A variety of a language or a level of usage, spec. one regarded in terms of degree of formality and choice of vocabulary, pronunciation, and (when written) punctuation, and related to or determined by the social role of the user and appropriate to a particular need or context.
1956 T. B. W. Reid in Archivum Linguisticum VIII. 32 He will on different occasions speak (or write) differently according to what may roughly be described as different social situations: he will use a number of distinct 'registers'.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 05:12, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Your "finally recognized" assumes facts not in evidence. I deny that the construction is inherently sexist, at all, much less "obscenely" so. Just the same I recognize that it's probably better to avoid it here, though I lament that necessity a bit.

(added later) by the way, I think you should have said generic masculine, not generic male. That's the point — the masculine pronouns are masculine in the sense of grammatical gender, not in the sense of referring to male sex.

I don't know where I picked up the word "register" but it works for me. I think wherein might be OK for WP if a situation should arise where it would flow naturally, though I don't know what that situation would be. But I don't write here the way I'd write for articles; I feel free to use a much broader range of expression.

Back to the point, I repeat my assertion that the MOS should say that singular they is not appropriate. --Trovatore (talk) 09:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

If we say the singular they is not appropriate in Wikipedia, isn't that the same as "proscribing" in Wikipedia, and exactly what is the alternative? It was pointed out that every alternative would offend someone. But if the only stated alternative is "rewrite", that can be interpreted as the impossible "keep rewriting it until everybody likes it". Impossible demands, such as the contradiction here and WP:HYPHEN's "Hyphenation involves many subtleties that cannot be covered here ..." (as if editors will stop writing articles until they find all of those subtleties), make editors less willing to understand and comply with the rest of the manual. Art LaPella (talk) 06:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not the same as "proscribing" because the MoS doesn't have the authority to proscribe. There are always options other than singular "they" or non-sex-referring masculine. They're not always extremely desirable, I grant. But they're better than singular "they". --Trovatore (talk) 07:16, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Um, yes it does. We just had a whole conversation about people who didn't want Wavelength to replace "due to" with "because of," and that was one of the polite ones. Yes, if we say "don't do X" on the MoS, it will be treated like a hard-and-fast rule. However if we say something like "only use the singular they when the above three alternatives would make the article too cumbersome," then we've left an exhaust valve, establishing that there are to be no witch hunts. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Since I can't get you to name those options, let me guess: "he or she", repeat the complete noun (perhaps 30 times) instead of a pronoun, or meditate until we think of something everyone will like? Art LaPella (talk) 08:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

One way out is to use the plural. --Trovatore (talk) 09:25, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Another solution I've seen in academic journals is to mix in non-sex-referring feminine pronouns, along with non-sex-referring masculine ones. Not necessarily recommending that for WP, because it's just a little too "invented" — not as bad as the eir nonsense to be sure, but English has no tradition of non-sex-referring feminine pronouns. Just the same, this would be better than singular "they". --Trovatore (talk) 09:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I think we have a measure of Noetica's scholastic expertise above. Thank you! Tony (talk) 10:48, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that switching from "he" to "she" and back is good writing. It makes it sound like the sentence is referring to different things. The three good alternatives mentioned in the article on gender-neutral language are 1. pluralizing 2. using "he or she" and 3. rewording "each pilot must keep the plane level," vs "the pilot must keep/her his plane level." Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:45, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I certainly didn't mean in a single sentence! I meant more that some articles would use he and some would use she. --Trovatore (talk) 18:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't find that to be so great either. If it's sexist to use "he" as if it meant "everyone," then it must be equally sexist to use "she" that way. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Though the boundaries are fluid, I think it might help to make more of a distinction between conventions, register, and style. In spite of the name, most manuals of style are about conventions, some of them arbitrary; the main point is that things (such as spelling and punctuation) are done in a reasonably uniform way. Register normally has a social element (in the wider sense). The use of they is in some contexts (such as its use for a specific person of indeterminate sex or for people in authority in general) a matter of register. In other contexts (such as its use for pairwise assignment) it is a matter of style rather than register. In matters of style it is often a matter of balancing conflicting objectives rather than questions of proscription. In legal, mathematical, and encyclopedic style, precision,conciseness, and readability are important but the different objectives have different weightings. Also, in legal and mathematical style there may be a convention that words can be redefined by the writer; this does not normally apply to encyclopedia articles, where the meaning of a word is defined by the language community. There may be contexts where use of "singular they" for pairwise assignment is more concise and should therefore not be proscribed.--Boson (talk) 16:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Please say exactly what you mean by pairwise assignment. --Trovatore (talk) 18:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I am referring to a situation where exactly one entity from one set is assigned to exactly one entity from another set.

An example might be "Each of the twins was asked if they had attempted to contact the parent from whom they had been separated, if they remembered the separation from that parent, and if they knew about their sibling." --Boson (talk) 21:04, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. That's a pretty specialized situation. I have to admit that particular sentence doesn't sound as bad as most of them. I'm not quite sure why. --Trovatore (talk) 23:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes, the word each is incorrectly understood as plural, whereas it is grammatically singular. (Subject-Verb Agreement, part 2) -- Wavelength (talk) 03:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Hint: the antecedent, although grammatically singular, doesn't refer to one specific individual. ― A._di_M.^{2nd Dramaout} (formerly Army1987) 21:12, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

No, that's not it. A sentence like each student retrieved their coat still sounds very very bad, and that each is not a specific individual either. There's something about the "twins" case that's different; I can't put my finger on it. --Trovatore (talk) 21:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

How would it sound to you if it started "each of the students"? Maybe you're taking the inner noun phrase ("the twins") rather than the outer one ("each of the twins") to be the antecedent of "they", possibly subconsciously. ― A._di_M.^{2nd Dramaout} (formerly Army1987) 21:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. Maybe. I'm not sure offhand. --Trovatore (talk) 22:17, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry if I'm repeating something others had mentioned, but I remember an example from a book by Stephen Pinker in which the "incorrect" singular "they" is preferrable in terms of clarity. It went something like this:

"When the King and Queen enter the room, everyone should take his or her seat." You could invent more of these, but the rule seems to be that the singular "they" is better when you've just mentioned one man and one woman. Chrisrus (talk) 00:04, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

"Singular they" may have certain advantages in other situations where the supposed antecedent is used in a general sense; it can be used as a "bounded variable pronoun", where "he or she" may be unacceptable or inappropriate. This includes not only constructions with "any" or "every" but also other cases where a noun phrase apparently referring to a member of a class is used to represent the whole class or an arbitrary member of the class. I am thinking of sentences like

"Everyone was required to return to their place of birth."
"The subject must be notified of their right to independent advice and their right to withdraw from the trial at any time."
"If the patient has not been informed of their financial responsibilities, they may incur unanticipated liabilities."
"It is not permissible to charge a member for a service if the member was not notified of their financial obligation prior to receipt of the service."

Differentiation between "normal" anaphoric use of a pronoun (to refer to a specific antecedent) and its use as a bounded variable pronoun (or the like) may also be relevant to Pinker's example. --Boson (talk) 14:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I am against using singular they in all four of those example sentences. --Trovatore (talk) 21:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but an individual editor preferring a different way of expressing the content for stylistic reasons (and justifying improvements if challenged) is different from a Wikipedia guideline stating, for instance, that "singular they" is to be avoided and "he or she" should be preferred. I would probably have more sympathy for the view that "he or she" is ungrammatical when used as a bound variable pronoun (though that is probably not something that could be sensibly expressed in a guideline addressed to non-linguists). I don't think "proscription" of "singular they" and similar rules regarding stylistic choices belong in the Manual of Style. Each case should be judged on its merits. In my opinion, this is not a matter of informal register or ungrammaticality, and it should not be proscribed by an arbitrary convention. --Boson (talk) 23:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, it is a matter of register, and the MOS should say that that choice is not appropriate. As I said, I wouldn't use the word proscribe, but only because I think that exaggerates the MOS's authority. --Trovatore (talk) 00:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I would be entirely happy if any editor were to use [singular] they in any or all of those four example sentences. Those concerned by stylistic inadequacy may wish to attend to peacockery and flab. (A randomly chosen quote from a randomly chosen FA: At the outset, there was disagreement about the group's purpose. Some desired to organize a social and literary club where all persons could participate. Others in the group supported a traditional fraternal organization. The overwhelming sentiment was dissatisfaction with lack of access to a literary society and members proposed to enlarge the functions of the group. The fraternal supporters were in the minority and the society thereafter organized with the intention of providing a literary, study, social, and support group for all minority students who encountered social and academic racial prejudice. Zzz.) -- Hoary (talk) 01:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

.