Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 177

Archive 170

←

Archive 175

Archive 176

Archive 177

Archive 178

Archive 179

Archive 180

Commas at end of quotes?

Wikipedia's standard of insisting that commas come after quotation marks (at end of quotes) strikes me as odd (as an American), and runs contrary to regular norms of usage, at least in American English.

• American standard usage: She said, "Punctuation styles on Wikipedia change too often," and made other complaints.
• Wikipedia standard: She said, "Punctuation styles on Wikipedia change too often", and made other complaints.

Shouldn't this policy be re-considered--at least for articles written in American English? It runs so counter to what we are normally supposed to do in the United States. [[1]] Garagepunk66 (talk) 05:06, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

The US Council of Science Editors doesn't agree with you. See Scientific Style and Format, 8th ed., University of Chicago Press, 2014. Tony (talk) 05:41, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Wait, isn't Scientific Style and Format British? It says "Cambridge Press." Are there two books of the same name? Or did the U.S. Council adopt a British book? Here's a link [2] Okay, it's looking like there are two books. Just to confirm, Tony. You've laid eyes on the CSE SSF[3] and not just the CBE one? Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:07, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

@Darkfrog24:—University of Chicago Press. The address of the Council of Science Editors, given at the start of the book, is 10200 W 44th Avenue, Suite 304, Wheat Ridge, CO 80033. Tony (talk) 05:49, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

I would recommend you review the archives on this. Logical quotation has been debated, extensively. --Izno (talk) 12:43, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

@Garagepunk66: "extensively" is, if anything, an understatement; reams of text and hours of editors' time have been spent on this topic, and have always ended up with no consensus to change current policy. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:42, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

I understand. But, what works in a scientific study, may not be ideal a humanities-related text. Admittedly, I come from the humanities end of things (as an American). This whole thing just runs contrary to everything I've ever been taught, and it could cause Wikipedia to become in many peoples' minds (at least here in America) considered a bad grammatical influence. Rather than having the one-shoe-fits-all approach, Wikipedia could develop guidelines can applied in different contexts, i.e. American English, British English, scientific, humanities, etc. Just a thought. Garagepunk66 (talk) 16:12, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

We do have such a guideline at WP:ENGVAR. The problem with your suggestion is that the notion of logical quotation is not so obviously or heavily tied to a particular variation of English as you seem to think. (This is besides its other value: That it is clear, when used, whether particular punctuation is part of a quotation or not.) --Izno (talk) 16:22, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

As for other rules, unless the MOS has a proscription or prescription, you are free to write as you would using other contexts. However, remember that we're not writing for Dr. John Smith but for Mr. Joe Schmoe, and the odds of writing with one of those persons also leans to the latter. Introducing specialist style can cause conflict. --Izno (talk) 16:26, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Garagepunk66, you are entirely correct. While there are one or two U.S. style guides that require British style, which the others here prefer to call "logical style," the overwhelming majority require American style. Most of the ones that allow British style are specialist style guides, such as those for chemistry or literary criticism, which isn't the kind of writing we do on Wikipedia anyway (You'll notice that Tony1 cites a style guide for science journal articles). Yes, this rule should be changed, and I'd support an RfC to that effect. American style guides that require American style include pretty much all the mainstream ones: The AP Style Book, pretty much all versions of the Chicago Manual of StyleChicago Manual of Style, 14th ed, the style guides of the American Medical Association and American Psychological Association[4] [5], MLA, Turabian, even NASA[6]... [7] We have pretty much zero reason to require British/logical style in American English articles. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:29, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Now there has also been some confusion as to how American American style is and how British British style is. What Tony1 and Izno are really talking about is that British English allows American style a lot more often than American English allows British style. You can pick up a reputable British newspaper and might find that it uses American punctuation placement, but you're not really going to see the reverse. So while you might be able to make the case that we should let Wikieditors use American style in British English articles, requiring them to use British punctuation in American articles doesn't have that kind of precedent. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:34, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

One more thing: This rule might be longstanding, but it's regularly ignored. It has low compliance in the article space. A couple years ago, I counted how many featured articles, which are supposed to be our most polished, used British style on the day they were featured, and the percentage was in the sixties. It's a lot lower in non-featured articles. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:59, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

See below; by DF's own stats, it's 73%. D'oh.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  22:49, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Nope; it's about 63%. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:26, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I laid my math out, and anyone can verify it. Yours exists in your head.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  21:23, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I've laid my math out too. Everyone come and look at SmC's and my lovely numbers. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:05, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

To clarify, though, it's not so much ignored as it is unknown. I.e. I don't think many editors are snubbing a rule they don't believe in; rather, it just doesn't occur to an American editor that this could be the rule. I find it to be unique among Wikipedia elements of style in its lack of accommodation of regional variation, and when it was pointed out to me after about 3 years of Wikipedia editing, I was astonished. Ever since, though, I've been using logical punctuation. (I haven't read all those arguments that apparently say, contrary to what I've thought I've known in decades of studying and writing English, that logical quotation is common in the US. So I still use the American version in everything but Wikipedia). Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 02:58, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

@Giraffedata: That's correct. A large number, surely a supermajority, of MoS "rules" are intended for cleanup operation by WP:GNOMEs. No one is expected to memorize all of MoS, and I doubt that a single of its top-10 regulars have done so (I doubt that many would score above 95% on a 100-question test of MoS points). Quite a number of things in MoS have low-compliance rates when it comes to what people first write (e.g. a space, specifically a non-breaking one, between measurement and unit or unit symbol, and a prescribed list of unit symbols; do not capitalize job titles except when used with a name; use lower case for an preposition in a title of a work if it is exactly four characters or shorter; use a pair of either spaced en dashs or unspaced em dashes for an emphasizing parenthetical construction; etc., etc.), but this is no reason to not have these guideline exactly as they are. If "editors don't always do it" were a valid rationale to get rid of a rule, most WP rules, including policies, would be deleted instantly. That said, I don't buy the "FAs don't follow LQ" story. Part of the WP:FAC process is examination for compliance with MoS and other guidelines. If articles are being promoted that are not compliant, that's a problem with FAC review, not with MoS.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  05:14, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

What I'm getting at is that changing the rule to allow American style (where appropriate) on Wikipedia wouldn't disrupt anything because for whatever reason WP:LQ isn't being followed to begin with. The other upshot is that the longstanding presence of American style on Wikipedia proves that American style doesn't cause problems in editing or reading comprehension, as has been alleged in previous discussion. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:57, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

On this basis, why isn't "British" style for acronyms and initialisms allowed by the MoS? Sometimes compromises must be made on the basis of WP:COMMONALITY, and just as I'd rather write "Isil" rather than "ISIL", others might rather write with "American" inverted comma style as opposed to "logical style". However, an editorial decision in favour of uniformity has been made in the MoS, and it has stuck. I can't write "Isil", nor use "American" inverted comma style. There is nothing inherently wrong in this sort of decision. RGloucester — ☎ 05:37, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, RG, British English allows both "Isil" and "ISIL," the way it allows both 'quotes' and "quotes." American English does not allow British comma placement. If you write "ISIL," you're still using neat and correct British English. If you write "quotes", you're using sloppy and incorrect American English. The MoS puts Wikieditors in a position in which they either have to break the MoS's rules or have to break standard English rules, and it's entirely unnecessary. But if you think the ban on "Isil" is unnecessary, then you've every right to try to get the rule changed. I'd certainly hear any case you'd make for allowing both. I think there may have been one a few months back, but I was a little busy at the time. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:32, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

You've missed my point. Yes, indeed, both "Isil" and "ISIL" are allowed in British English. Likewise, however, both "American" and "British" styles of inverted commas are allowed in American English. Examples of such a usage have been provided, even if they are not anywhere near representative of the majority. However, British English (and other national varieties of English) does not allow for "American" inverted comma style. For this reason, WP:COMMONALITY applies. If there is a usage that is used in all varieties of English, even if it is not the majority usage in all varieties, that usage should be chosen. That is why "Isil" is prohibited, and why the "American" style of inverted commas is prohibited. It makes perfect sense, and reduces conflict. RGloucester — ☎ 16:21, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

RG, you have that backwards. Tony and the others have cited cases of mainstream, professional British publications (like newspapers) using American-style punctuation, but you don't see mainstream, professional American publications that use British. Per WP:COMMONALITY, we should be using American style, though frankly, I don't see why we can't allow both British and American on Wikipedia, per ENGVAR (and also per WP:COMMONALITY, "Insisting on a single term or a single usage as the only correct option does not serve the purposes of an international encyclopedia"). Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:50, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Where did "Tony and the others" cite cases of British publications having used "American" inverted comma style (in non-fiction)? In this discussion, they seem to have cited only American publications that use "British". RGloucester — ☎ 18:18, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

In this discussion, Tony1 cited one style guide meant for scientific journal articls—which is not the kind of writing we do on Wikipedia. I believe it was Tony1 who said that the Guardian has been known to use American style, but it might have been SMcCandlish. According to Butcher's Copy Editing, which I have seen cited on talk pages and in the article space but have not read myself, American style is common in British fiction. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:07, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, which is why I said "in non-fiction". We write non-fiction here, so usage in fiction is irrelevant. I read The Guardian on a regular basis, and have never seen it use the "American" style. The style of scientific journals is closer to the encyclopaedic register than is journalistic usage. RGloucester — ☎ 02:16, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

@RGloucester:: It's just this pointless nationalism confusing things again. What's really happening (and what DF doesn't grok with fullness) is that American publications tend to favor two things: double-then-single, and punctuation-inside. Collectively this can probably be safely termed something like "American-style quotation" or even "North American quotation style", though I would not be surprised if various Canadian publishers use another variant (including LQ, just as in the US, or a British one, just as they prefer a some but not all British spelling, and not consistently). "British" publishing (really British-plus-former-colonies-outside-NA) has multiple styles – some use single-then-double (Oxford, and a decreasing number of newspapers, most? fiction), some use double-then-single (much but not all journalism, some fiction); independently of that question, some use punctuation-outside-usually (Oxford), punctuation-outside-usually with different exact rules (various journalism publishers), and punctuation-inside (most fiction). LQ is independent of double-vs.-single, and is punctuation-unchanged (whether terminal or not), and has nothing like any kind of national tie. That in itself makes it the obvious choice for COMMONALITY reasons, in addition to the quotation accuracy reasons (both TQ/AQ and the various BQ styles fail in that regard, though the BQ ones less frequently).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  14:55, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

SmC, there is a difference between not understanding you—which in some cases I admit I don't; for example I don't understand how you came to many of the conclusions that you've drawn, why you don't find the sources I've offered valid, etc.—and not agreeing with you. I understand that British English is more permissive on this point than American English is, that American-style punctuation is not nearly as rare in British English writing as the reverse. But the truth is that American English is not permissive in this way. Whether you want to call it British or LQ, whether you think of it as two systems or one (and it's clear that you think of it as two), the overwhelming majority of American style guides say not to do it, and this is borne out in what writers and publishers actually do. Whether you want to think of Wikipedia's rule as British or some third style, American English doesn't allow it. So, per WP:COMMONALITY, why not use the style that both major versions of English permit? Or, heck, both systems work well enough, so why not allow both? We do it with spelling. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:05, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree that we should follow sources and precedents that apply to the kind of writing we do on Wikipedia. Pretty much all of them say not to use British punctuation in American English writing. If you believe that that should include science guides, then note that APA and AMA are both more widely used than SSF CSE, and they both require American style. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:24, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Again, I'm not questioning that as to whether the "American" style is the majority usage in America. I'm merely suggesting that given the evidence that "British" or "logical" quotation is used by some American publications, and given its use across the rest of the English-speaking world, and given the advantages it has over "American" style in terms of accuracy, I see no reason why WP:COMMONALITY would not favour this variety, much as WP:COMMONALITY favours "ISIL" over "Isil". RGloucester — ☎ 05:04, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

British style has no advantages over American in terms of accuracy. In none of our discussions have any of WP:LQ's supporters ever cited one case of American style causing any inaccuracies or misquotations anywhere on Wikipedia, even when directly asked, and yes, American style is common enough that there would be at least one. For the kind of writing we do on Wikipedia, British style's advantages are imaginary. But you don't have to take my word for it: Chicago Manual of Style, 14th ed

Because "ISIL" is still correct in all varieties of English, and British punctuation is correct in some varieties and incorrect in others. If you write "quotes", in American English, you're wrong. If you write "ISIL" in British English, you've merely selected from among correct options.

American does have advantages over British style that make it well-suited to Wikipedia in particular: Because it does not require access to the source material, it is easier for multiple editors to work on the same passage. Darkfrog24 (talk) 05:39, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Editors without access to the source of a quotation should not modify it, other than to convert TQ to LQ (which is always safe; doing the opposite never is without a copy of the original source material). External RS tell us that LQ has accuracy advantages over TQ (and that neither is "British" or "American"); that is sufficient (by the standards of your "source the MoS" campaign), and it's only one of multiple reasons WP uses LQ anyway. Demands that LQ "supporters" (i.e. everyone but those who insist on falsely nationalizing quotation punctuation styles and those who don't care) should demonstrate examples of inaccuracy or misquotation on WP is a nonsensical prove-a-negative proposition. The very fact that we use LQ means that such instances are minimized. It's also fallacious because the problems with TQ are largely internalized to the reader; no one can prove that any particular reader was confused as to whether the punctuation at the end of any particular alleged quotation is actually part of the quotation or not, because we can't read minds, and readers generally don't comment on the matter ("Hey, I'm confused about this.") Readers who edit generally just fix it in situ and move on. The central matter is that any quotation punctuated with LQ is simply an alleged quotation, for any and all readers who do not have the original source. This is important both for our own readers immediate benefit, and because WP content is frequently re-used (i.e., any given alleged quotation here is apt to be copy-pasted by people into other materials elsewhere).

But the principle can in fact be demonstrated very easily with a real quotation: It's quite important that Emerson said "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds", and not "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." The TQ practice of writing It's quite important that Emerson said "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds," and ... makes it impossible to draw such a distinction so succinctly and, more importantly, it invalidates the ability of the reader to know whether the original statement was a complete sentence or not (it was not, and the truncated material is actually crucial to understanding his meaning, which many if not most who improperly quote Emerson get wrong; see WP:Emerson).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  07:57, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

SmC, please retract your claim that I or anyone is "falsely nationalizing" this issue. You personally don't consider these practices British and American, and you're allowed to have an opinion, but I've proved to you that, whether you think I'm right or wrong, I'm not making this up just to mess with you. Please stop accusing me of falsely nationalizing this issue. British style is used in Britain and was popularized by Fowler and Fowler in their book, The King's English. You've been shown sources indicating this. Please show at least one source that supports your position that these styles are not really British and American. You are allowed to disbelieve sources that you personally find unconvincing and you are allowed have your own opinion. You are not allowed to say that I am making things up. Even if you think my sources are wrong, the fact that they exist proves that the others and I are not jumping to conclusions or even drawing them in a way inconsistent with Wikipedia's rules.

The rule banning American style has been in place for a long time, but because it has such low compliance, it is not followed in much of the article space. American punctuation is common enough on Wikipedia that if it caused problems, it wouldn't be this hard to find one.

In the example you cite, neither "...minds," (American) nor "...minds" (British) tells the reader what punctuation Emerson did or did not use. In neither case does the reader know whether the original was a complete sentence or not. In both cases, the reader must consult the original. On Wikipedia, British style has no advantages over American style. The only thing it does is slap American English Wikieditors in the face and make our whole team look careless. Punctuation sticklers are some of the least careless people I've encountered, and none of us deserve that. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:07, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I can't "retract" the same truth other people are telling you. The rest of this is rehash, so I'm skipping it. People got pretty irritated the last time this debate turned long and repetitive, and I learn from my mistakes. PS: This is now actually addressed in more detail in user talk, where such inter-personal disputation belongs.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  06:09, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Your claim that I am doing anything "falsely" is inappropriate, counter to Wikipedia's rules and should be retracted. You are free to believe that I am misinterpreting sources and to disagree with the conclusions that I have drawn, but the word "falsely" implies that I am lying about them. I've proven to you that I am not lying. The sources I've cited do indeed say what I've said that they say.

I haven't gone back to your talk page and I don't plan to in the near future. I told you what you did wrong and why it's wrong. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:34, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I never said anything about you lying; you're the one who is always questioning other editors' honesty here, and seem outspokenly committed to doing so [8].

User talk is the venue for interpersonal disputes. If you refuse to use user talk, I'll respond here, once, but I won't make anyone else read it.

Dictionary.com: "false". Definitions 1, 2, 6, and arguably 7, all apply. None of the rest are applicable: Definition 3 (the one you seem to be relying upon) requires a relationship to which one can be unfaithful, disloyal, or a traitor; 4 is totally subjective, an internal perception; 5 is about goods; 8 is limited to biology; 9 is about goods/services, 10 is about music), 11 is an obsolete usage from Early Modern English; and 12 is only used in a specific phrase. I decline to play silly word games with you in public. Yes, it is quite clear to me that you are offended when people use adjectives and adverbs like "false[ly]", "incorrect[ly]" and "wrong[ly]" with regard to your arguments, but they've been demonstrated to be so, by more than just me here (that's the on-topic part). I can no more retract that than I can retract the labeling of astrology as pseudoscience when I say "astrology is pseudoscience". If it makes you happier, feel free to refactor my statement to change "falsely" to "incorrectly". These words are, in this context or anything like it, synonymous to me and to most English speakers, whether you want to saddle one of them with idiosyncratic and contextually implausible baggage or not, as if were speaking Victorian English. I live in 2015, you do, too, and I do not find it reasonable to believe that you really believe that I intended something like definition 3.

I refuse to discuss this matter further in this venue.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  19:22, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Then don't. In the link you cited, I did not accuse Pi Zero or anyone of lying. I said that I used to take people's word for things, specifically that they'd seen sources or events occur. Now I check them for myself. If you would like to change your accusatory "falsely" to a word that indicates that you think I'm wrong rather than that you think I'm lying, I highly recommend that you do so. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:07, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

(Moving the margin back to the left)... Can't Wiki just develop a contingency for different applications in the rules. If it turns out that British English allows more flexibility, as Darkfrog24 says, then why can't we? Don't get me wrong, either method has its merits, but in the United States we are taught in school to put our commas before the quotation marks, plain and simple. And, when people in the US see it done the another way, it looks glaringly incorrect to our eyes. Ultimately this isn't a matter of what certain highly specialized scientific stylesheets want, but what is established in popular usage (which Darkfrog24 indicated is the way we write at Wikipedia). We have a whole civilization (a nation of 240,000,000 people who speak and write American English according to certain widely established norms). Garagepunk66 (talk) 19:49, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Because what Darkfrog24 says is provably false. In the US we're also taught in school that the US is a democracy, that there are four food groups, that Edison invented the light bulb, and a lot of other nonsense. "What my teacher told me" is irrelevant. Style is largely arbitrary and variable, not a right-or-wrong matter, but certain styles can be objectively shown to have particular positive and negative consequences, and the MoS is based on an analysis of what effects they have or are likely to have on our readers. It is not MoS's job to make it as convenient as possible for every editor to write however they'd like. If this were its goal, it simply would not exist, since any rule or guideline, by its nature, impedes the desire by someone somewhere to do something in a particular way which they prefer. The entire point of any guideline on anything is to constrain random preferences and channel output in a particular direction that produces the desired result. When it comes to quotation styles, the principle desired result is zero doubt in the reader's mind that what is between the quotation marks is in fact part of the quotation (unless clearly a [bracketed editorial change]). The only way to retain this goal and also allow typesetter's quotation would be "to bracket the falsely inserted punctuation[,]" like that, a result probably 100% of WP readers and editors would not want to see.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  07:57, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

No, what I've said is provably true. Did you not see the sources in the links I provided? (And U.S. kids haven't been taught about four food groups since the 1980s). SmC, you think that there's no such thing as right or wrong in English, and if that model works for you, fine, but stop trying to impose it on other people. The MoS's job is to help Wikieditors make Wikipedia look clear and professional, and WP:LQ is working against that. Writing standard American English is not a random preference.

American English does not make the claim that everything between the quotation marks was part of the original material, and the assumption that it does is nowhere near so common as you seem to think it is. English doesn't claim that the e in "grate" is pronounced or that "lead" is always pronounced the same way either. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:15, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

P.S.: We shouldn't need a unanimous consensus to modify the rules because this is not an either/or (win/lose) situation. We can have it both ways, but just in different contexts. So, there should be no gridlock to get in the way of doing what is best. Garagepunk66 (talk) 19:55, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

In over a decade of various individuals wanting to undo logical quotation on WP, consensus to do so has never been achieved, or even come close. See WP:CONSENSUS and WP:TE; the unsatisfied desire by one or a handful of editors to change or resist something does not mean that consensus has changed in favor of their proposition.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  07:57, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

The fact that people who show up and challenge this rule get bullied to shut up and go away probably has something to do with that. The biased RfCs don't help either.

Consensus means that people who don't like WP:LQ still aren't allowed to go and use American punctuation in the article space. It doesn't mean they're not allowed to try to change consensus. When the overwhelming majority of sources say X and none say Y, the idea that consensus could change in favor of X at any time is reasonable. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:15, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

• This is all rehash. We use logical quotation because it is precise. It is not "British quotation". There is no "British quotation", but multiple styles used in UK writing, and they are similar to but not identical to LQ in several ways. LQ exists as a separate style and is not regional. It evolved independently in and coalesced into a recognizable style from multiple fields, including technical writing, textual analysis, philosophy, and linguistics (and even the Chicago Manual of Style concedes its preferred use in these fields, including in American publications, and yes, even in the decades-obsolete 14th edition someone keeps citing for no apparent reason). "ISIL" and "Isil" are not both regarded as correct by British English style guides. Rather, two British newspapers' style guides prefer "Isil", in defiance of all other British style guides. This divergent lower-case style originates in broadcast journalism, where it was used with teleprompters to distinguish between acronyms that should be read aloud as words vs. initialisms to be spelled out. A couple of newspapers with a lowest-common-denominator approach to their audiences chose to "help" their readers this way. It's not a common style, a national style, a formal style, or an encyclopedic style. Even if it were a national style, MoS and WP would not be bound to use it. WP:ENGVAR applies when there's a strong national tie, and when all other considerations are equal ("neighbour" vs. "neighbor", "auto boot and bonnet" vs. "car trunk and hood"), i.e. when there aren't any compelling reasons to prefer one style over another. When there is, we use whatever makes the most sense for Wikipedia's needs and audience (e.g. using double quotes then single quotes nested within them, not vice versa, for most purposes, because a single-quoted quotation with an apostrophe in it is hard to parse). There are reasons we use LQ, despite the existence of multiple other styles, and reasons we spell acronyms in all-caps, not sentence caps or small caps despite these other styles being attested, or we would not have had these conventions for a decade+ despite them being perennially questioned by those unaware of previous discussions or unwilling to accept consensus about these matters. We already covered most of this just within the last 30 days already.

  I'm of a mind to RfC a proposal for at least a 1-year moratorium on re-re-re-raising these matters, because it's disruptive to collaborative and constructive work on this guideline, and is the principle source of strife on this talk page.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:38, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia's current rule absolutely is British, and reliable sources have been cited in this thread demonstrating this. If your position is that it is not really British, SmC, then cite better sources that say that Chicago MoS and AMA et al. are wrong. Here is Oxford Dictionaries. This is not a rhetorical proposition. If there's a good reason why we should disregard professionally compiled style guides from both sides of the Atlantic, you should say what it is.

Almost all American style guides require American style, and the few that don't are specialist style guides, and almost all professional-level American English writing uses it. If that's not a strong national tie, then what is?

The reason Wikipedia uses LQ is because that's what computer programmers are used to, and the early MoS had a disproportionate number of programmers. Specifically, LQ was put in place as part of a split the difference deal between British and American punctuation. The editors believed that British English always required single quotation marks (it doesn't) and said, "Okay, we'll use British comma placement and American double quotation marks." This rule got here because they believed it to be British! British punctuation does not have any non-hypothetical advantage over American, and it has a few non-hypothetical disadvantages.

As for a moratorium, if it were the same person re-raising the same issue, that would be one thing, but that's not what's going on here. The fact that editors who don't know each other keep pointing out that WP:LQ violates the rules of American English does not mean that we should tell them they have to shut up. It means we should change WP:LQ. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:54, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Constant repetition that "LQ is British" after this has been disproven again and again does not make an actual argument, just the fallacy of "proof by assertion". The fact that this reassert-but-never-address-the-evidence pattern is coming from a single active editor, for nearly seven years, is essentially its own proof that there is no consensus that this view is correct, and that the dispute is a perennial and tendentious waste of time and productivity. There is no need to keep re-re-re-citing the same evidence over and over simply because one party refuses to acknowledge it, waits a few months, then re-raises the same "debate" again pretending that their view was not previously disproven. I decline to get into another long-winded round of proof-and-denial with you here, given that the last round of this resulted in a mutual sanction/warning for disruption. You know how to look in the archives, and plenty of sources have already been provided there, including in the previous round (September, I think). Any further sourcing work I'll do on this (and I've done a great deal more since last this was discussed here) will be used in mainspace where it belongs, when I have the time to set aside to do that with focus. There appears to be a palpable administrative prejudice against circular "show me proof, here's the proof, I deny your proof, so show me proof, okay here's the proof ..." vicious cycles especially in MoS debates, and I won't be suckered into engaging in another round of it with you. The proof has been provided; its on you to go look at it again.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  07:57, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

SmC, it has not been "proven again and again" that B isn't really B and A isn't really A. From my perspective, it's been proven again and again that these styles are British and American.

• Sources have been cited saying "American style is this and British style is that."
• It has been shown that almost all professionally written American sources use American.
• I accept that a significant number of British sources also use American.
• A few British Wikieditors have cited their own experience that American is acceptable in British English.
• No sources whatsoever have been cited that state "American style isn't really American"/"British isn't really British." But if I somehow missed it just post the link again.

None of this means that British style isn't really British or that American style isn't really American. What it means is that British English is more permissive on this point than American English is. Like I said to Peter, I could support a rule allowing some form of editor's discretion in BrE articles, but banning American English is still incredibly arbitrary. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:39, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

That's all 100% rehash of previous discussions already in (quite recent) archives here, so I decline to regurgitate it with you here again.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  19:24, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

The Oxford Dictionaries link given above does not say that the positioning of commas and quote marks is the "British rule", and it is emphatically not. I am British and have both written and edited books and other publications in the 1980s and 1990s that used TQ – to my knowledge it was then used more often than LQ.

As it happens, I favour allowing the use of TQ or LQ (consistently) in articles, and supported this position in the last RfC. Confusing the issue with nationalist arguments, whether US vs. UK or whatever, is utterly counter-productive. Just stop. The good argument is that many editors – at the least most US and older UK editors – are used to TQ and it creates unnecessary work to "correct" it, and creates unnecessary friction to insist on it. Peter coxhead (talk) 23:06, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

No one wants any strife--I certainly didn't make this well-intentioned inquiry to cause any hard feelings. However, if this is perpetually a continuous matter of debate year after year, then that means there is something that desperately needs to be re-visited in the policies. Putting a moratorium on discussion of the issue isn't going to make the matter go away--putting a lid on it would be far more counter-productive. I have said that the polices can allow for just enough flexibility for us all to go home happy--and that would eliminate these annual debates on the topic. Garagepunk66 (talk) 23:19, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I would agree if it were not for the fact that the contention about the matter almost entirely comes from a single party, who insists on pursuing a nationalism-based angle the factual basis of which has been repeatedly disproven, and which even their potential "allies" on the broader question keep telling them is a dead horse. @Peter coxhead: Re: '[many] are used to TQ and it creates unnecessary work to "correct" it, and creates unnecessary friction to insist on it' – The problems I have with that are: A) All style conventions take some thought/work to follow, so by that reasoning we should simply have no MoS. B) The friction is generated largely by a single person, and certainly by a tiny minority of editors, who simply refuse to accept that not every known style is permissible, and who further will not accept that everything they think is national matter isn't, no matter how many times it's shown to them. This is WP:Tendentious editing, not legitimate "friction". Even if some friction originates with previously uninvolved parties, they rapidly understand why WP uses LQ, and the friction goes away. All style choices between two or more potentially viable candidates will necessarily produce at least a little friction/dispute, whether it's on-WP or off. That's the nature of style guides, not a flaw with MoS or any particular "rule" in it. And they are just guidelines. Anyone who prefers TQ is welcome to write new material in it, which per WP:5P can be mercilessly edited later to comply with MoS.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  07:57, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

@Peter coxhead: The Oxford link says "in American English, single or double quotation marks are acceptable but it's important to stick to one way or the other throughout a piece of writing. Any punctuation associated with the word or phrase in question should come before the closing quotation mark or marks" and "In British English, the usual style is to use single quotation marks, while any associated punctuation is placed outside the closing quotation mark." It's easy to miss. Chicago 14 is a lot clearer.[9] The CBE Scientific Style and Format is also clear: "In the British style (OUP 1983), all signs of punctuation used with words and quotation marks must be placed according to the sense."[10]

As you can see, reliable sources from both the U.S. and U.K. describe these styles as "American" and "British." I am not "confusing the issue" by pretending that there is a national split; I'm offering sources that show that there really is a national split. I do not expect you or anyone to just take my word for it—and please take that as the respect that it is meant to be. What I am asking of you, Peter C, is that while you are absolutely within your rights to believe that Chicago, Oxford, etc. are wrong on this point, please accept that that is your personal belief and not fact. You should not act as though I'm making it up. I've proven that I'm not. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:04, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

You seem to be saying that, per your own experience, British English allows American punctuation. That doesn't mean it's not American. Let me offer my experience and tell you that American English does not allow British punctuation. What this means, if our experience is representative, is that American English only allows its own system while British English allows both. I could support a change in WP:LQ to reflect that.

Per your point that the current WP:LQ alienates the kind of editors whom we want to gnome our punctuation, I also agree. While I'd prefer some kind of ENGVAR-based rule, I'd certainly consider a case-by-case rule to be an improvement over our current situation. I'd support the change. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:08, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

On the first point, it's not what I am saying at all. TQ was the norm once, everywhere, since it was developed for typesetting. It's not "American" in any meaningful sense; it's the traditional style. In the UK, it has given way, mostly, to a form of LQ, but most publications are inconsistent (especially with commas and the end quote marks for direct speech).

Much more importantly, you're just not hearing my second point: making this an ENGVAR or other kind of national issue alienates editors whose support is needed for a change. It's the impact on Wikipedia that matters and that needs to be the focus of the discussion. Peter coxhead (talk) 02:10, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

And I'm saying that it is American in meaningful senses. But you can change my mind: If you would like me to stop saying it, show me sources that outweigh the ones I've cited here. If you either can't or don't feel like doing that, that's fine, but then stop asking me or anyone to stop saying it.

I'm not making this an ENGVAR issue. It just is one. If you think that we shouldn't focus on the fact that there is a split between U.S. and British English on this matter, that's one thing, but you seemed to be maintaining that it does not exist, and it does. I'd have no problem improving Wikipedia's punctuation rules in coalition with people whose views don't match my own exactly, but pretending that I believed something that isn't true would be unethical and would probably come back to bite. If you personally find the sources I've shown here to be wrong or incomplete or otherwise not convincing, then that's your right, but do not insist that I share your position.

So as for common ground, how would you change WP:LQ? You know I'd like an ENGVAR-based rule, but what would yours look like? Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:56, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

FYI, it is not uncommon to find both American/British and typographical/logical descriptions of these style differences. E.g. this book. Sometimes that ones that call LQ British also mention that it is becoming more popular in America, like this one. Dicklyon (talk) 03:14, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Yay, sources! Okay, yes, British style is common enough on blogs and message boards but not in the kind of writing we do on Wikipedia. This second book you've cited, Preparing for Call Center Interviews expressly says that it's not used in formal writing, which is what we're after. It also establishes that what you call "logical quotation" is British. ...it also lists Jargon File as one of its own sources. This book might not be properly researched. The first book, Handbook for Typography for the Mathematical Sciences looks more reliable, but it is a specialist guide. Again, it also specifically refers to the British rule as British: "But the rules are different in Britain." Neither of these supports WP:LQ in its current, use-British-in-all-articles form. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:11, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

The notion that the so-called "British style is common enough ... but not in the kind of writing we do on Wikipedia" is self-evidently false, since it's the norm in all English-language publishing other than most North American publishing in a diffuse range of fields and contexts (but by no means all North American publishing). That is, "British style is common enough ... but not in the kind of writing we do on Wikipedia" = "non-American publications can be ignored". But this misses the main point (as usual): This perpetual willful confusion of "British style" (there are actually at least two British styles) and logical quotation isn't going to fool anyone. You've been told my multiple editors over many years that this is not a viable approach, either factually or with regard to consensus-building (or consensus-changing). It's unclear to me why anyone would evidence any difficulty distinguishing these two statements: "British style and logical quotation have features in common" and "British style and logical quotation are identical", despite the fact that they're obviously different propositions, the former has been proven, and the latter has been disproven, many times. The fact that some sources observe a trend toward TQ in American publishing and toward something like LQ in British cannot erase the sourced differences between LQ and the various forms of British punctuation. The suggestion that the Jargon File (paper edition: The New Hacker's Dictionary) calls into question the reliability of a work that cites it is also self-evidently false. The Chicago Manual of Style does so itself, and defers to TNHD on questions of "computer writing", and has done so for the last three editions, including the current one (the two principal authors of TNHD actually have a greater claim to authoritativeness within the topic of that usage and style guide than does the eponymous author of Garner's Modern American English, for example). The CMoS actually recognizes LQ (without calling it that) in at least four disciplines (including in American writing) and only criticizes one of them. Even this criticism is ignored in the field in question, philosophy, because the CMoS is not a philosophy journals style guide, but one aimed almost entirely at American mass-market book publishers (i.e., mostly US humanities, popularized science, and fiction, and it has stiff competition from other style guides with regard to at least the first two). Various fields ignore/contradict CMoS as they feel is necessary, including in works like the CSE Manual that are also published by Chicago U. Press. There is no universal style guide, and CMoS (much less the decades-obsolete 14th edition that one editor in particular keeps trying to rely on) is not more authoritative across all areas than any other is. WT:MOS has been over this many times before. Re: "You know I'd like an ENGVAR-based rule, but what would yours look like?" – We already have one, and it's been stable for over a decade. Not broken; don't "fix".  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  06:03, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

SmC, I was asking Peter Coxhead what his vision of Wikipedia's quotation mark rule would be. You've made it clear that you think there's nothing wrong with WP:LQ. Peter's made it clear that his views differ from both mine and yours. Who knows? He might have come up with something that wouldn't be ignored in the article space or repeatedly challenged on the talk page. Per your other point, there doesn't have to be a universal style guide for American English; the consensus among sources on AmE is universal outside of specialist guides. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:52, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

As for whether British style and "logical quotation" are two names for the same thing, according to reliable sources, they are: Journal of Irish and Scottish Studies Scientific Style and Format Chicago Manual of Style 14 (I keep citing 14 because this passage is available online; it is not contradicted by the 15th or 16th editions). CMoS recognizes LQ by calling it "British style" (CMoS 14 and 15, prob. 16 too). I'm not asking you to take my opinion without proof, so please don't take it as an insult that I'm not willing to take yours without proof. As always, you can change my mind: show me sources of equal or better quality that say "British and logical are different; here's how" (or that can be clearly inferred to be indicating that; I'm flexible, though my standards may differ from yours). Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:59, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I and others have already done that many times. You simply ignore sources that don't agree with you, and return to the fallacy of insisting that the existence of some sources that don't bother to distinguish somehow erases the existence of those that do. I note that you dodged virtually everything I said, by the way, with a suggestion that I basically have no right to comment. That's not fooling anyone.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  06:09, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

SmC, what source doesn't agree with me? Please cite it here. I have come to realize that you and I process information very differently when it comes to this issue, so it would probably help if you posted the actual text that you think means "American isn't really American and British isn't really British, etc."

Remember how you kept saying that that the Guardian criticizes Wikipedia for referring to British practice and logical as the same thing? It took me forever to even figure out which article you meant, even though I'd already read it. This is because David Marsh does not actually do that [11]. He refers to part of Wikipedia's quotation marks in English article as misleading, but he is not talking about whether British and logical are the same thing while doing so. (NOTE: If this isn't really the Guardian article that you meant, if you were referring to a different one, please say so.) It seems likely to me that you are, like with the Guardian article, exaggerating or projecting your own opinions onto the source. However, I could be wrong about what you are thinking. You might not be imagining things. If you want me to believe that there's a source that says "It's not really American," just show it to me. I've done as much for you. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:30, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Another thing: wouldn't we want to alleviate any unfair negative stigmas associated with Wikipedia? We've all heard the story about someone's teacher telling the class "You cannot use Wikipedia for research on your paper." Why would we want to reinforce this unfair and negative attitude with the added perception that we use incorrect punctuation? Maybe certain masters and PhD-level science classes use the Wiki quotation mark/comma configuration, but I can guarantee no one else in the United States does. If any American high school science teacher were to ask the students to use punctuation contrary to that of the English Department's standards, he or she would be shown the door. Garagepunk66 (talk) 08:02, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

It's not an unfair and negative attitude, and instructors rarely if ever say this. Rather, they say that WP cannot be used as a source. It's very common for teachers and professors to suggest that WP is a good place to find some sources, by looking at what sources we cite. Its perfectly reasonable for instructors to not want WP articles to be cited as sources for the very same reason WP itself does not permit citations to WP:USERGENERATED content. And none of this has anything to do with quotation punctuation.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  06:03, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

"We can use British but not American even though British doesn't work any better" is extremely unfair. "Let's call American 'illogical' even though it isn't" is extremely negative. I tell my students not to use any encyclopedia as a source for facts beyond basic definitions and, like SmC says, that Wikipedia is a good place to find sources but not a good source itself. However, I also tell them not to trust Wikipedia's punctuation because it's so sloppy. Garagepunk is right that Wikipedia would become more reliable if it allowed editors to use correct punctuation—reliable for writing, if not for facts. Teachers of younger students often encourage them to read so that they will subconsciously pick up the patterns of good writing. Right now, they can't do that with Wikipedia and, unlike the source issue, that is a solvable problem. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:18, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

As I said earlier, I decline to be drawn into another circular rehash round with you. All of your objections above have already been dealt with in previous editions of this debate. Recycling them endlessly is a waste of time. I will, however, address a handwave you keep trotting out, by proving that it, too, is false (in subthread below). It's time to let the dead horse decompose naturally.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  06:09, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Degree to which LQ is followed and ignored in FAs

In response to frequent claims about Americans and logical quotation by Darkfrog24, that no one was bothering to do the work to challenge, I decided to bother, just to put a lid on it. I randomly selected Featured Articles from the WP:FA list, starting at the top and clicking left, right, and middle from various categories as I moved down. By the time I went from A through most of L, I already had 100 of them (a statistically significant sample, and I expect that repeating the experiment with M–Z will produce compatible results, and yes, I have enough RAM to keep that many articles open at once). I then spent many hours examining them for applicability, and if applicable, for compliance with MOS:LQ: Are they using logical quotation, or have they lapsed into typesetters' quotation from the allegedly overwhelming preference of American editors and the (frankly insulting) implication than they simply aren't intelligent or capable enough to remember or emotionally deal with a minor style variation from what they were taught in grammar school, even after it's been explained to them, and even when they regularly encounter it every day? In the process, I made various improvements to these articles (some related to the question here, some not) – this had to be editorially productive to be worth this much effort and time.

The smoking gun: After hours and hours of this, I only found one single FA out of 100 that was consistently using typesetter's quotation, in ways that did not also align with logical quotation, and it was not even for an American subject, but Flag of Armenia [12].

Results in detail

I accepted as applicable all articles with a strong US national tie: 7 World Trade Center, Marcus Ward Lyon, Jr., Barbara McClintock, Edward Drinker Cope, G. Ledyard Stebbins, Idlewild and Soak Zone, Panic of 1907, Adam Eckfeldt, The Livestock Conservancy, Avery Coonley School, George Washington (inventor), History of Chincoteague, Virginia, Ford Island, Sci-Fi Dine-In Theater Restaurant, Birth control movement in the United States, Elliott Fitch Shepard, Washington v. Texas, Mumia Abu-Jamal. All 18 consistently used LQ. (The Abu-Jamal instance is perhaps even remarkable, considering how much random "drive-by" editing controversial articles that like receive, often from anonymous and new editors.) I also accepted all articles with no national tie with regard to their subject, but which appeared to be written in American (or Americanized Canadian) English, i.e. characterized by -ize/-or endings: Three Beauties of the Present Day, Fungus, Albatrellus subrubescens, Titanium, Noble gas, Macintosh Classic, Acid2, Parallel computing, ROT13, Same-sex marriage in Spain, Taiwanese aborigines, Atomic line filter, Asperger syndrome, Harold Innis, Rhabdomyolysis, Flag of Canada, Hero of Belarus, and Pedro Afonso, Prince Imperial of Brazil. All 18 consistently used LQ. I excluded those on British (and British colonial but not North American) topics, and those with no national tie but written in British or Commonwealth English (-ise/-our spellings), since British quotation and logical quotation coincide more often than not, and this would not help test "the American question". Examples include Northern pintail, Social history of viruses, Splendid fairywren, and various others, including around 20 that were intrinsically British bio- or geographical topicss. I also excluded a case of inconsistent English variety (Alzheimer's disease, which has multiple instances of both -ise and -ize spellings). It's notable, by the way, that such a large percentage of our articles are written in American English, yet the amount of complaining about LQ is so minuscule and, aside from a single editor, so short-lived once the rationale for it is made clear. If Americans as a class were really somehow "incompatible" with LQ, this would have become clear over a decade ago. Several of the 100 articles (e.g. Loggerhead sea turtle, Californium, Enzyme inhibitor, Vkhutemas, History of Lithuania (1219–95), etc.) did not use quotation marks frequently enough or in a way that could distinguish between LQ and TQ. One, Double Seven Day scuffle, would require too much paper-source research to determine whether all of its varied uses of ." versus ". comported with LQ, though none were obviously incorrect. I did not run into any article with a strong US tie written in British English, or vice versa, other than the questionable case of Edgar Speyer, born American but later a naturali[s|z]ed British citizen, which was written in British English, and excluded. More complex results were arrived at after hours of source verification of every single questionably styled quotation, where the sources were available online (or where, in two cases, I coincidentally had a paper copy myself). In nine cases – Seacology, Finn M. W. Caspersen, Madman Muntz, James Bryant Conant, Aggie Bonfire, Hadji Ali, John W. Johnston, Mayan languages, Nahuatl – each had one instance of TQ, but all the rest of their content used LQ. I fixed all of these ([13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21]). In some cases, the error post-dated the WP:FAC, in others it did not, suggesting that FAC and WP:FAR examination of MoS compliance is not always very thorough. Four others had one occurrence in the text, and one or more additional ones in hand-formatted citations that would have been eliminated by use of citation templates (which all use LQ): Rosewood massacre [22] (which had no TQ at all when it became a Featured Article [23]), Samuel Adams [24], History of Minnesota [25], and Sentence spacing (which had numerous other style problems) [26]. A handful of articles included a questionable case, where the usage in question wasn't technically "wrong" in LQ, just sloppy and unhelpful, in the form of including terminal punctuation inside a short quoted fragment that did not form the thrust of the quoting sentence; this was apparently done just because the fragment had coincidentally happened to be the final words of a sentence in the original source. LQ does not require the inclusion of the terminal punctuation from the original, it just permits it, and forbids insertion of falsified punctuation within the quotation marks. If the quote is fragmentary, it is usually best to leave the punctuation outside. These articles were 1689 Boston revolt [[27]], and Ecclesiastical heraldry [[28]]. strong Nine cases were found with several instances of TQ or apparent TQ in the body of the article, among instances of LQ (or cases where both styles coincide):Marshall Applewhite [29], where TQ was still the minority of the usage in the article, mostly appearing in a single section (probably the work of a single editor), and they were all added after the FAC.[30]; Truthiness, which had various other style problems; I cleaned up all at once [31]; Apollo 8 [32]; 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens [33]; Thomas C. Hindman [34] (which also had a false quotation [35]); Stephen Trigg [36]; Bengali Language Movement (which also had and still has a number of broken citations and other problems); Alaska Mental Health Enabling Act; Michael Brown Okinawa assault incident, which had a handful of TQ instances in the text, but total chaos in the punctuation of its reference citations, round brackets for editorial insertions, confusion of commas with semicolons, missing punctuation, double punctuation, use of hyphens for en dashes, etc., so it's almost odd that it was so consistently LQ in most of the content [37]. In most of these cases, the subject relates either directly to the American government/military/law, or to matters subject to wide US media coverage but little direct reader experience or expertise, and so are more likely than average to be influenced by USG or American journalism style guides and subject to "drive-by" noob editors unfamiliar with MoS but familiar with US news and government usage. As with the set just above this, it's also noteworthy that in many specific instances punctuation-inside wasn't strictly wrong, but should have been eschewed because the quotation was fragmentary and did not form the bulk of the WP sentence. Also, plenty of the definite uses of TQ vs. LQ post-dated the FAC. At any rate, in all of these cases, the TQ problems were trivially easy to fix, and LQ remained dominant anyway. Two additional cases Plymouth Colony and Swedish emigration to the United States, used a random mixture of LQ and TQ, and also evidenced several additional quotation and other punctuation and style faults [38] [39], and are thus basically useless data. Additional observations: In a few cases – Panic of 1907, Edgar Speyer, and ROT13 – I found hypercorrection, in which terminal punctuation that actually belonged in the original, substantial quotation, and fitted the logic of its use in the quoting sentence, had been moved outside the quotation. I moved it back in [40], [41], [42]. Other errors were detected, such as the inclusion of a semicolon inside the quotation marks, at Aggie Bonfire [43], and weird doubled quotation marks (single inside double) at the same article [44]. In others, I sometimes found a Unicode ellipsis, a spaced apart ASCII one (". . ."), use of a three-dot instead of four-dot one for sentence ending, and/or lack of spacing between the ellipsis and the preceding or following complete word – often in the same article. Other vagaries included incorrect dash spacing, and the misuse of round brackets (parentheses) to mark editorial insertions, and the use of correct square bracketed ones to make changes that should not be made, as well as the introduction of quotations with nothing but a space when a comma or colon was grammatically required, among other such problems. The gist: Articles which exhibit TQ problems typically also exhibit other punctuation difficulties. I don't think this is because those who favor TQ are worse at punctuation; rather, the consistent use of LQ indicates that an article has been written from the start, or at least semi-recently cleaned up, by someone who is well aware of much of MoS and following it closely, thus avoiding or removing a variety of errors. That is, LQ is a "green flag" that at least some minimal level of MoS compliance has already been attempted at the article (at least if it's in American English). This is an unexpected but useful bonus. Finally, some of the TQ instances in FAs date a far back as 2007 [45], suggesting that no one actively "polices" FAs and GAs for MoS compliance, and that WP:GAN/WP:FAC doing this as part of the approval (and later review) processes is more valuable than it might at first seem. There's a strong prejudice against changing anything in GAs and especially FAs, other than by adding new material with reliable sources, because there's a perception that every aspect of the text already has a "stamp of approval" on it. This isn't really true, but the perception and its effect clearly do exist. Ergo, GA ad FA processes need to pay even more, not less, attention to MoS compliance.

Statistical analysis: Of 100 FAs picked at random, 61 had enough quoted material, and were clearly in American English, to use for the analysis. A strict interpretation: 18+18=36 (59%) had total, strict LQ compliance, 9+9+2=20 (33%) had mixed usage, and only 1 (1.6%) had consistent TQ (a handful had other quotation-related problems, but they do not relate to the LQ–TQ divide). However, only two of the mixed cases were very mixed. Including those with only a single case of TQ in an otherwise LQ article as being on the LQ side, the numbers are 18+18+9=45 (74%) LQ, 9+2=11 (18%) mixed, and 1 (1.6%) TQ. Counting those that were mostly LQ with a few TQ instances on the LQ side : 18+18+9+9=54 (89%) LQ, 2 (3%) mixed, and 1 (1.6%) TQ. Just for kicks, if you give the only-one-flaw LQ articles to the LQ side, and the 2-or-more-flaws articles to the TQ side (which isn't actually reasonable), you get: 18+18+9=45 (75%) LQ, 2 (3%) mixed, and 1+9=10 (16%) TQ. No matter what, TQ totally loses, and even the lowest possible result for LQ, 59% perfect compliance, is still much, much higher than compliance with many other MoS rules.

So much for the proposition that American editors largely ignore LQ and write in TQ here. It just is not true. It probably happens fairly often at the stub-to-B-class level, because the bulk of the editors working on weak, new, or trivial articles here are less experienced and less familiar (if at all) with MoS. But we don't care. Compliance with all of MoS, and with all other WP guidelines and policies, is remarkably low in such articles. There's nothing unique about LQ in this regard, and it is not a rationale against having such a guideline. Steering articles into compliance with WP:POLICY to produce excellent articles is a major part of why we have GA and FA in the first place.

 — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  06:09, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

So even in the featured articles that you looked at, only about 60% use British under your first set of calculations and about 75% under your second, and there are still lots of articles that are a sloppy mix acceptable under neither rationale. I applaud you for doing the work, but your conclusion that American style "totally loses" is not held up. If we were to change WP:LQ, it would not be the disruptive even that it has been claimed to be. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:18, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Update: A day later, precisely zero of my LQ (or other edits) to these articles have been reverted, despite all of them being bold, having been done in a marathon of AWB-like changes, and most of them being to "American" topics presumably watchlisted mostly by Americans, about whom it's been postulated that they hate and resist LQ. So much for that proposition, too, then. Where is the outcry from outraged Yanks? Where are the RfCs on the article talk pages challenging the style at those articles? Where is the ANI case against me for imposing undiscussed nit-picky changes that somehow don't really have consensus? Where it the VP thread accusing MOS of being a cabalist conspiracy against Americans? The clear fact of the matter is, people just WP:DGAF about this and most other style matters. We've had consensus for LQ for over a decade, for good reasons. While consensus can change, it doesn't do so lightly, and it's clearly not happening. LQ works well here, because everyone is already familiar with it by now (it's the default style of the Internet, and something very close to it is the default style of most non-American publication), and it prevents inaccurate quotations. Any further e-breath spent on this "down-with-LQ" campaign is wasted.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  11:58, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I'll read your content closely later, SmC, but the truth is that in 2011 and 2012, I spent a whole year checking every article of the day on the day it appeared on the front page. Here are my results:

TOTAL: 326

U.S. only: 13 (two iffy)

U.S. with strays: 10

British only: 110 (five iffy)

British with strays: 94

Inconsistent/about half: 54

None: 23

Other: 30 (seventeen (one iffy) consistent with British or British with strays) (one consistent with U.S.) (four inconsistent)

(110+94)/326=62.5% British or mostly British; 23/326=7% American or mostly American; about 16.5% a sloppy mix acceptable in neither system, etc. And these are the articles of the day, assessed on their big day. Hitting "random article" showed even less compliance with this unnecessary rule. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:02, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Great, your numbers actually support my position. Lumping them (if I'm understanding your nomenclature), it's 110+94+17=221 for LQ, vs. 13+10+1=24 for TQ, and 54+4=58 mixed up, so still a 221 vs. 82 LQ vs "everything else" ratio. This, despite the overwhelming majority of WP editors being Americans. This is much higher compliance rate that we'd expect for a large number of MoS's points, like always using an non-breaking space between measurement and unit, etc. This certainly disproves conclusively the notion that Americans will not tolerate or cannot understand LQ. (Seriously, 24 out of 303 for "American" quotation? LOL.) It demonstrates exactly what I said: Americans (at least literate and/or regularly online ones, i.e. most of them in our editorial and reader pools) are already familiar and comfortable with this quotation system. On this matter, I can rest my case. PS: Note the conspicuous absence of bad-faith-assumptive demands on my part that you provide "proof" and "diffs" and "evidence" and "sources" to back your table there. Part of being a Wikipedian is trusting that people you're having discussions with are not lying about everything, especially in policy discussions. Please absorb and exhibit that attitude like the rest of us. PPS: When even the British editors tell you LQ isn't British, don't you think it's time to stop telling them they're wrong? Would you go to Tokyo and tell them how to speak Japanese?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  18:47, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Even if we use your calculations, British style is still only in the sixties. And these are in articles of the day, on their big day. They're supposed to be Wikipedia's most heavily scrubbed.

In 2013, a few other editors, notably Peter Coxhead, checked a group of non-featured articles, Category: Cities in New York, and found compliance to be 50% mixed, 31.5% British and 18.75% American (NOT counting "no instances" as part of the total; counting "no instances," it would then be about 36% mixed, 22.7% British and 13.6% American). A few other editors ran searches on cities in Canada.[46] Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:53, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

No one claimed that no Americans like British style. Among non-Americans, SlimV and PeterC have both said that they like American style. There's plenty of crossover in people's personal preferences. If anything, that's a point for allowing both systems on Wikipedia. As for Tokyo, I've cited sources from both sides of the Atlantic that say that these are two names the same thing. You want to change my mind? Cite better sources that contradict them (but then at most, we'll get to "the sources are split on this matter").

I have at no point accused you of lying. I think you believe what you say. But you and I definitely process information differently. You have in previous discussions cited sources that, to my perspective, say the exact opposite of the point you're trying to prove. Maybe you read them too fast or overlook or forget a few specifics; whatever. It can happen to anyone. It is not bad faith to recognize that human beings are subject to error.

I actually saved all my raw data. Names, dates, links... I can most certainly post it here if you or anyone wants to see it. There is nothing bad faith about asking for specifics. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:01, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

You may need a new calculator: 221 articles out of 303 using quotations = 73%. The fact that a different, more targeted search (on "extremely" American topics like New York) will produce some variant numbers but still a tiny minority of consistent TQ usage, is both unsurprising and still supports the long-standing consensus for LQ. And this is from your much-vaunted pool of non-FA's that's supposed to be a smoking gun against LQ. Nope, not even when it's extremely biased toward American editors. The Canadian examination was only of 11 articles with quotations, so it's not statistically significant. It's invalid statistics to count the no-instances-of-quotations articles in any such sample (if you want to know how many homes with children have dogs, you don't also count the homes with no children). The fact that people have opinions and preferences does not in any way militate against MoS setting specific standards when there's a consensus to do so, or MoS would simply not exist, since there are zero style matters about which people do not have differing opinions; Q.E.D. again. I don't know why you say "No one claimed that no Americans like British style" since no one claimed that anyone claimed that no Americans like British style; straw man and handwave. I'll be happy to disabuse you of the notion that I'm citing sources that say the opposite of what I think they say if you provide what you think is an example, and if it's actually relevant to improving MOS or determining consensus about it; this page does not exist for you to continue to take unsupported pot-shots at me questioning my reading ability. Thank you for agreeing that pointing out human error is not an accusation of bad faith; that resolves the interpersonal and off-topic dispute further up. However, demanding that I provide you with a source (already cited in the article, and available free online all over the place since not subject to copyright) to prove that a comma was not in the original is clearly an accusation of either lying or mental incompetence, so it's still incivil, an AGF fault, and an unsupported aspersion-casting personalization of a style dispute, contra WP:ARBATC#All parties reminded, about which you were administratively warned quite recently. No amount of CYA backpedalling escapes that conclusion (though I couldn't care less whether you "retract" it; I'm not here to play school-yard games). PS: "you and I definitely process information differently." We can agree on that one, at least.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  22:49, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

(110+94)/303 ≈ 67.3%

You are making too many assumptions about what I'm thinking and why. Time to ease off in the putting words in my mouth.

"No one claimed that no Americans like British style" is a response to this: "about whom it's been postulated that they hate and resist LQ."

Here's one example of you citing sources that say the opposite of your point: Your point: "LQ and BQ are not the same thing. BQ is placement by sense and LQ is placement by original position" You quoted Chicago 16: "In an alternative system, sometimes called British style (as described in the Oxford Style Manual ...), single quotation marks are used, and only those punctuation points that appeared in the original material should be included within the quotation marks; all others follow the closing quotation marks. (Exceptions to the rule are widespread: periods, for example, are routinely placed inside any quotation that begins with a capital letter and forms a grammatically complete sentence.)" (copypasted from your post in the archive under "Discussion of LQ RfC" [47])

It gave the name of the practice as "British" but described what you were saying was logical quotation (and also British style, giving the one name for both of them). In this way, the source directly contradicted your point, suggesting instead that the two terms are used interchangeably by RS. I fully expect that you do not see it this way. If you did, you wouldn't have cited CMoS 16 for this point in the first place. But this is a good example of why, when you say "There are sources that agree with me" or "X is true" I answer with "show me."

This is also why "Just look the source up in the article" doesn't fly here. I can look at the sources, but I interpret them so differently from you that it is very hard for me to tell which one you mean or what part of it you believe supports you. Example: I kept going through the Guardian looking for articles that criticized Wikipedia because I didn't know that you were talking about one that I'd already read, because the conclusion you drew from it was so different from what its author actually said, at least from my perspective. The question "How did SMcCandlish draw this conclusion?" is best addressed by asking SMcCandlish. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:26, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

This is getting more and more nonsensical by the minute, especially your assertion that CMoS says BQ and LQ are the same when it very clearly does exactly the opposite, as I'll re-demonstrate yet again.

Step-by-step refutation that surely no one else cares about at this point

Since I laid out in detail the exact math I did using your own reported findings, while you're just throwing out numbers that violate basic statistics methodology, I'm 100% confident that anyone else following this will agree with my math, not yours. (I gave up a long time ago trying to convince you of anything once you've decided to get into one of these "argue with SMcCandlish no matter what, until admins step in" rounds, so I'm satisfied with that prediction.) And it doesn't matter anyway. Even 60-something percent still proves my point anyway. Doing math is not "putting words in [your] mouth" (though all your straw-man arguments are attempts to put words in mine). Still, if you feel your data is being misinterpreted, feel free to actually provide it instead of your summary of it. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. You demand evidence from everyone and refuse to take anyone at their word, so it's time to pony up. Re: "You are making too many assumptions about what I'm thinking and why." - Obvious projection. Re: "....is a response to this: ..." - Except it wasn't. It was yet another straw man. I never said "no Americans"; that's a "crazy argument" scarecrow you erected to attack, instead of addressing what I actually said. As usual. You've straw-manned me at least four times in one day. Re: The quoted stuff from old discussion - You're selectively ignoring what doesn't support you (not just all the other sources cited over the several days of discussion, but even in the directly quoted passage from CMoS 16th!). Hint: "Exceptions to the rule are widespread". No such exceptions exist in LQ, proving conclusively that CMoS is not talking about LQ there. I'll just repeat what I said at the time, since it's still true: "You're not reading (what I say, or the source). It describes British style in one section, and it describes another style (identical to what others call LQ) but does not name it, in another section." It actually does the latter in three other sections, at least. 'It gave the name of the practice as "British" but described what you were saying was logical quotation (and also British style, giving the one name for both of them)' is patently false (or incorrect, or untrue, or whatever synonym doesn't produce more bad-faith accusations out of you). But it's all meaningless, because you completely missed/ignored the thrust of the whole argument and the meta-argument it was a part of: For something like the 12th to 15th time, I've lost count: Your identification of some sources that choose not to distinguish between LQ and BQ (CMoS is not actually one of them, you just mysteriously insist that it is no matter how many times this is disproven) cannot magically erase the fact that other RS do distinguish them. No matter what you do or say, there is never going to be any way around that fact. You can have 20 sources that fail to draw the distinction, and as soon as one points out what the distinction is, the distinction has been drawn (and more that one draw it, consistently, including the Guardian article you claim to have read so carefully, which is especially weird). I decline to rehash that old discussion any further, because it was administratively hatted as disruptive, and you're taking your wiki-life in your own hands trying to resurrect it. I don't feel like going down with you. Re: '"I fully expect that you do not see it this way." If you did, you wouldn't have cited CMoS 16 for this point in the first place.' My prediction was and remains correct, and hopefully by now it's clear exactly why I cited it, and that my reasons for doing so aren't to convince you, but to convince those you've confused with your aggressively marketed, tendentious OR on this matter. Re: 'this is a good example of why, when you say "There are sources that agree with me" or "X is true" I answer with "show me."' - Oh, I agree it's a very good example. It's a good example of you demanding sources, being given them, denying them, accusing the editor who provided it of mental fault, and then continuing now with a renewed example of precisely the kind aspersion-casting about which you were warned, which also follows on me quoting you taking this attitude toward all editors in MoS discussions. It demonstrates a pattern of personal hostility and negative presumptions in my direction, resumption of that pattern after ARBATC warnings to avoid it, and a habitual stance in this direction, taken against all who disagree with you. Just this one post by you is actually the core of a pretty solid WP:AE case. I just don't like involving AE in internal WP:POLICY discussions because it's a separation of powers problem for WP's self-government. Re: This is also why "Just look the source up in the article" doesn't fly here. I can look at the sources, but I interpret them so differently from you that it is very hard for me to tell which one you mean or what part of it you believe supports you. - That's a total non sequitur, on two different levels. If an article has a source, and it's available instantly and for free, then "just look the source up in the article" always flies here. It's the entire basis of WP! The reason we cite sources in articles is that they can be found in it and their content verified as to whether it supports the claim made or not. If you can't deal with this, why are you here? Secondly, I quoted a specific passage, and noted where a comma appeared in the false TQ version of the quote and did not appear in the original source. It simply is not possible for any difference of interpretation to occur, there's nothing but an objective fact: a comma is there or it's not; nor is it possible to not know what source I meant since it was clearly identified; nor is it possible to be confused about what supports or does not support my assertion that the original had no comma there, since, again, it's a simple objective fact. Re: "I interpret them so differently from you" - No kidding. The problem is you interpret them so differently from everyone. Even British editors are telling you you're wrong about your assumptions about LQ and British quotation styles, yet you just deny, deny, deny. Re: "I kept going through the Guardian looking for articles that criticized Wikipedia because I didn't know that you were talking about one that I'd already read, because the conclusion you drew from it was so different from what its author actually said, at least from my perspective." - How is this even possible? Direct quote from the Guardian article in question: Wikipedia, which claims to bat for Britain on this subject, gives the following misleading advice ..., followed by them quoting our total-crap article using an example of LQ as "British practice", which it is not, which Guardian says it is not, which the other UK style guides it cited says it is not, and which Oxford/Harts says it is not, etc., etc. Even CMoS says it's not. FFS. Re: ' The question "How did SMcCandlish draw this conclusion?" is best addressed by asking SMcCandlish.' Which you didn't do, you just cast aspersions and reverted to reasserting your own position, without understanding much less rebutting its refutation. Par for the course. If you don't understand how someone came to a conclusion, the most obvious first step is actually to simply re-read the material in question and think about it critically, with your own assumptions about what it meant to you yesterday put aside, until you either understand the other party's point, or understand where they went wrong in coming to it. "I don't understand you, so you're wrong" is not a mature or rational approach to anything, much less WP consensus discussions.

Given that virtually nothing you said was actually responsive to any point I raised but has the character of just argument for its own sake, a great deal of it was uncivil, and every bit of it was easily refuted, I consider this discussion closed.

May we please move on to something more productive? The issues IDed below, with the en dashes and hyphens section, are considerably more important, since they relate to an actual dispute arising because of poor MoS wording, the improvement of which is what this talk page is for.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  02:45, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm guessing that that's you, SmC. Heads up: You've gotten pretty rude and you should probably take a break to cool off. Please remember that I wrote the post that you feel the need to refer to as nonsensical because you specifically asked me to as an example of one the of the reasons why I keep asking for sources. While you are at liberty to re-raise the "BQ and LQ are/aren't the same" issue if you want to, remember that you are the one raising it.

I am including no-cases in my calculations because, in the original conversation, which you can find in the archive, the argument was "If we replace WP:LQ, we'll have to do soooooooo much work changing aaaaaaaaall those articles that use BQ!!" Articles that do not contain either British or American punctuation will not have to be changed, which makes them relevant.

As for "selectively ignoring what doesn't support you," 1) you haven't actually cited any sources that say that American style isn't American or that we shouldn't use it, etc. You say there are "RS that do distinguish them," but I'm still waiting for you to cite one. 2) The pot just contacted the kettle with a comment about its hue. I've cited many sources referring to these practices as British and American, and you are ignoring them. Either stop doing that or stop acting like you think it's wrong.

We absolutely disagree on one point: If there are twenty sources that say "they're the same" and one that says "they're different," then unless they differ profoundly in quality, the twenty sources should be given more credence than the one.

CMoS 14th ed., section 5.13:

It's even called "BRITISH VS AMERICAN STYLE"

BRITISH VERSUS AMERICAN STYLE 5.13 The British style of positioning periods and commas in relation to the closing quotation mark is based on the same logic that in the American system governs the placement of question marks and exclamation points; if they belong to the quoted material, they are placed within the closing quotation mark; if they belong to the including sentence as a whole, they are placed after the quotation mark. The British style is strongly advocated by some American language experts. 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. Whereas there clearly is some risk with question marks and exclamation points, there seems little likelihood that readers will be misled concerning the period or comma. There may be some risk in such specialized material as textual criticism, but in that case author and editors may take care to avoid the danger by alternative phrasing or by employing, in this exacting field, the exacting British system. In linguistic and philosophical works, specialized terms are regularly punctuated the British way, along with the use of single quotation marks. With these qualifications, the University of Chicago Press continues to recommend the American style for periods and commas.

Why do you think that this source doesn't believe that the British and American systems are British and American? It flat-out says that they are, and neither of its two successor editions contradict it.

Nope, still not remotely clear why you think CMoS 16 says the opposite of what it actually says.

As for "just look up the sources in the article," I mean when you say that in response to "SmC, which source are you talking about?" I can't look at an article with five sources and tell which one you were thinking of. I'm not telepathic.

Marsh does not actually say "Wikipedia is referring to BQ and LQ as the same thing and shouldn't." He's saying "The Guardian doesn't use what Wikipedia seems to think British style is, based on this example." As for re-reading, actually, yes, I make a habit of doing that. I still don't see where you're coming from. The only source I have for your thought process is you.

I don't think you're wrong because I don't understand you. I think you're wrong because the things you say directly contradict what I've seen myself and what I've seen in reliable sources.

Why do you think my post wasn't responsive to any point you made? Like I said, I cited that example at your specific request! This is not rhetorical; it is meant as constructive criticism: Instead of complaining that I didn't respond to a specific point to which you wanted a response, just say which point you want me to respond to. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:46, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

As for my raw data, you don't need to be so rude. I already said I'd provide it if anyone wanted. All you had to say was "yes, please."

Raw data - featured articles 2011 and 2012

Only U.S. punctuation: Polyozellus (indirect quotations, two incidences) 4-5-2011 http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Polyozellus&diff=422514292&oldid=422514243 Peterborough (4-20-2011) this is an English town!! (British spelling) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Peterborough&diff=424969111&oldid=424960892 Hurricane Rick (5-12-2011) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Hurricane_Rick_%282009%29&diff=428746623&oldid=428746596 Battle of Osan (7-4-2011) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Osan&diff=437805169&oldid=437805109 Somerset (7-12-2011) British subject matter http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Somerset&diff=439189998&oldid=439186524 Hurricane Danny (7-16-2011) Only one instance; poster probably didn't know it was an indirect quote http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Hurricane_Danny_%281997%29&diff=439866365&oldid=439866077 Californium (7-20-2011) One instance; poster probably didn't know it was an indirect quote. http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Californium&diff=440568755&oldid=440044956 J.C.W. Beckham (8-31-2011) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=J._C._W._Beckham&diff=447754827&oldid=447754343 Almirante Latorre (9-5-2011) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Chilean_battleship_Almirante_Latorre&diff=448313432&oldid=448313149 The Green (Dartmouth College) (9-6-2011) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=The_Green_%28Dartmouth_College%29&diff=448843164&oldid=448261600 Battle of Rennel Island (1-28-2012) only one instance, not an indirect quote http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Rennell_Island&diff=473797083&oldid=473796796 Vijayanagara Empire (2-7-2012) one instance, not a direct quote http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Vijayanagara_Empire&diff=475687390&oldid=475686538 Ring-tailed lemur (3-21-2012) one instance http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Ring-tailed_lemur&diff=482926307&oldid=482925752 Inconsistent: William Henry Harrison, featured 4-4-2011 http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=William_Henry_Harrison&diff=422291824&oldid=422285742 Pithole, Pennsylvania, featured 4-9-2011 (about half and half) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Pithole,_Pennsylvania&diff=423120508&oldid=423118044 Populous: The Beginning (4-10-2011) (could be considered American or in error; only one clear instance of British) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Populous:_The_Beginning&diff=423278612&oldid=423278001 Thomcord (4-17-2011) (two instances of British and one of American) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomcord Mellitus (4-23-2011) (one instance of clear British and one of American, British subject) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mellitus House, M.D. (5-8-2011) One section done in American http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=House_%28TV_series%29&diff=428071704&oldid=428069902 Shimer College (American subject) 5-11-2011 http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Shimer_College&diff=428573069&oldid=428572990 Battle of Khafji (5-13-2011) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Khafji&diff=428918219&oldid=428918192 CSI Effect (5-16-2011) (about an even split) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=CSI_effect&diff=429488384&oldid=429488040 Taare Zameen Par (5-17-2011) (about an even split, British spelling) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Taare_Zameen_Par&diff=429580006&oldid=429367206 God Hates Us All (5-22-2011) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=God_Hates_Us_All&diff=430348332&oldid=430347762 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (radio series) 5-25-2011 (WAS inconsistent before I got to it.) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=The_Hitchhiker%27s_Guide_to_the_Galaxy_%28radio_series%29&diff=430794581&oldid=430794422 Deinonychus (5-29-2011) Two British, one American http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Deinonychus&action=history Johnstown Inclined Plane (5-31-2011) Two British, three American http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Johnstown_Inclined_Plane&diff=431927796&oldid=431927670 Edward Elgar (6-2-2011) About a third of the way down, many examples of both. http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Edward_Elgar&diff=432105543&oldid=432105388 Casino Royale (2006 film) 6-2-2011 http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Casino_Royale_%282006_film%29&diff=432281861&oldid=432279506 Phil Hartman (6-8-2011) One section in American, the rest in British http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Phil_Hartman&diff=433155564&oldid=433137745 Norte Chico civilization (6-12-2011) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Norte_Chico_civilization&diff=433980205&oldid=433979338 Thích Quảng Đức (6-14-2011) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Th%C3%ADch_Qu%E1%BA%A3ng_%C4%90%E1%BB%A9c&diff=434348703&oldid=434348377 Shelton Benjamin (7-8-2011) One each, American and British. http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Shelton_Benjamin&diff=438510594&oldid=438510515 Parthian Empire (7-10-2011) Seven American and three British. http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Parthian_Empire&diff=438835334&oldid=438576063 Walter Bache (7-11-2011) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Walter_Bache&diff=439017170&oldid=439016231 Jack Warner (7-27-2011) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Jack_Warner&diff=441797717&oldid=441795573 Definition of planet (7-30-2011) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Definition_of_planet&diff=441911400&oldid=441888210 Oort cloud (8-7-2011) One British and two American http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Oort_cloud&diff=443592011&oldid=443590483 Malagasy cuisine (8-10-2011) One American and two British http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Malagasy_cuisine&diff=443617203&oldid=441836303 Tropic Thunder (8-12-2011) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Tropic_Thunder&diff=444535744&oldid=444533287 Mother's Milk (8-15-2011) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Mother%27s_Milk&diff=445065377&oldid=445065340 Sacagawea dollar (9-2-2011) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Sacagawea_dollar&diff=447980883&oldid=447401776 Shapinsay (9-8-2011) One American and one British http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Shapinsay&diff=449230364&oldid=449111618 ARA Moreno (9-22-2011) Two British and one American http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=ARA_Moreno&diff=451949071&oldid=451948818 Marojejy National Park (10-11-2011) Two British and one American http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Marojejy_National_Park&diff=455129996&oldid=455129302 Hermann Detzner (10-15-2011) References are in American http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Hermann_Detzner&diff=455768599&oldid=455760454 Alexandre Banza (10-17-2011) Two British and one American http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Alexandre_Banza&diff=456100632&oldid=456033505 The Political Cesspool (10-23-2011) Many of both http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=The_Political_Cesspool&diff=456999181&oldid=456789611 Statue of Liberty (10-27-2011) Got to seven of each before I stopped counting (NOT counting blockquote of a newspaper article that used American punctuation) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Statue_of_Liberty&diff=457751214&oldid=457746835 Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare (11-4-2011) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Call_of_Duty_4:_Modern_Warfare&diff=459029982&oldid=459021086 Governor of Kentucky (11-7-2011) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Governor_of_Kentucky&diff=459553140&oldid=459552405 The Lord of the Rings (1978 film) (11-14-2011) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=The_Lord_of_the_Rings_%281978_film%29&diff=460700861&oldid=460699435 Battle of Vukovar (11-17-2011) Significant numbers of both but more British than American http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Vukovar&diff=461209325&oldid=461207500 Blackbeard (11-21-2011) Six American and twelve British when I stopped counting http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Blackbeard&diff=461863136&oldid=461862769 Knowle West, Briston (12-26-2011) Three American and five British http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Knowle_West,_Bristol&diff=467833203&oldid=467832697 The Entombment (1-6-2012) two British and one American http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=The_Entombment_%28Bouts%29&diff=469929158&oldid=469927676 Brad Pitt (1-9-2012) six and seven when I stopped counting http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Brad_Pitt&diff=470530207&oldid=470529961 Press Gang (1-15-2012) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Press_Gang&diff=471604480&oldid=471594647 Chew Stoke (2-1-2012) two British and one American http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Chew_Stoke&diff=473483720&oldid=455284276 Titania (moon) (2-4-2012) two British and one American http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Titania_%28moon%29&diff=475251519&oldid=475251478 Frederick Russel Burnham (2-8-2012) one British and one American http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Frederick_Russell_Burnham&diff=475875631&oldid=475875438 Abbas Kiarostami (2-16-2012) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Abbas_Kiarostami&diff=477429745&oldid=477426638 Baldwin of Forde (2-17-2012) two and two http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Baldwin_of_Forde&diff=477475254&oldid=477475228 Hey Baby (No Doubt song) (2-24-2012) when I stopped counting http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Hey_Baby_%28No_Doubt_song%29&diff=478704594&oldid=478695156 Martha Layne Collins (3-7-2012) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Martha_Layne_Collins&diff=480759541&oldid=480758645 1910 London to Manchester air race (3-8-2012) two British and one American http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=1910_London_to_Manchester_air_race&diff=480940396&oldid=480938753 Gorgosaurus (3-10-2012) two British and two American http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Gorgosaurus&diff=481258438&oldid=481258386 Hurricane Eloise (3-26-2012) one British and one American http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Hurricane_Eloise&diff=484105923&oldid=484104352 William Walton (3-28-2012) nine British and six American when I stopped counting http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=William_Walton&diff=483921914&oldid=483919045 Body Count (3-31-2012) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Body_Count_%28album%29&diff=484824417&oldid=484800763 American with Strays: Stanley Green (despite British subject matter, only two British among American) 5-7-2011 http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Stanley_Green&diff=427941645&oldid=427921893 Trade dollar (United States) 7-13-2011, two British among American http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Trade_dollar_%28United_States_coin%29&diff=439351803&oldid=439351431 Mantra-Rock Dance (7-15-2011) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Mantra-Rock_Dance&diff=439652227&oldid=439410025 Metacomet Ridge (8-19-2011) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Metacomet_Ridge&diff=445289929&oldid=444648286 Orval Grove (8-28-2011) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Orval_Grove&diff=447070807&oldid=446983651 Bix Beiderbecke (11-28-2011) Two British fourteen American when I stopped counting. http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Bix_Beiderbecke&diff=462992726&oldid=462989031 Piano music of Gabriel Faur (2-12-2012) When I stopped counting http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Piano_music_of_Gabriel_Faur%C3%A9&diff=476569533&oldid=476569332 Rutherford B. Hayes (3-3-2012) When I stopped counting, there was only one case of British. http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Rutherford_B._Hayes&diff=480075877&oldid=480073825 Baker Street and Waterloo Railway (3-9-2012) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Baker_Street_and_Waterloo_Railway&diff=481112641&oldid=481112587 British with Strays: Philitas of Cos (mostly British) 4-6-2011 http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Philitas_of_Cos&diff=422682744&oldid=422667263 The Pit and the Pendulum (1961 film) 4-8-2011 (two strays (but I fixed one)) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=The_Pit_and_the_Pendulum_%281961_film%29&diff=422975324&oldid=422948263 Nfaanra (two incidences of American punctuation, not counting an indirect that I corrected) 4-21-2011 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nafaanra Herschel Greer Stadium (4-26-2011) Two instances of British among about four of U.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herschel_Greer_Stadium Navenby (one incidence of American) 4-29-2011 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navenby Fossa (one incidence of American, American spelling) 4-30-2011 http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Fossa_%28animal%29&diff=426703205&oldid=426703016 Millennium Park (two American among many British) 5-1-2011 http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Millennium_Park&diff=426861683&oldid=426850536 Brabham (One American (British subject), probably a mistaken indirect) 5-1-2011 http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Brabham&diff=426984679&oldid=426931829 Edward III (5-9-2011) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_III_of_England Evelyn Waugh (5-26-2011) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Evelyn_Waugh&diff=430965507&oldid=430960557 Charles Holden (5-29-2011) Some places that are probably not correct British but still arguably LQ. http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Charles_Holden&diff=431583884&oldid=431583856 Gianni Schicchi (5-30-2011) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Gianni_Schicchi&diff=431751235&oldid=431750673 California's 12th congressional district election (6-3-2011) About four of American. http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=California%27s_12th_congressional_district_election,_1946&diff=432446778&oldid=432442662 Ancient Egyptian literature (6-9-2011) One stray http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Ancient_Egyptian_literature&diff=433376184&oldid=433370727 Rufus Does Judy at Cernegie Hall (6-13-2011) One stray http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Rufus_Does_Judy_at_Carnegie_Hall&diff=434168044&oldid=434167499 Myst (6-16-2011) Two American, both indirect quotes. http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Myst&diff=434580840&oldid=434573702 First Roumanian-American congregation (6-19-2011) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=First_Roumanian-American_congregation&diff=435192966&oldid=435187339 The Sun Also Rises (7-1-2011) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=The_Sun_Also_Rises&diff=437249619&oldid=437248653 Transformers (film) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Transformers_%28film%29&diff=437492689&oldid=437490294 "Nothing to My Name" (7-23-2011) Three or four American to seven or eight British. http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Nothing_to_My_Name&diff=441104642&oldid=441103861 "Albert Stanley, 1st Baron Ashfield" (7-25-2011) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Albert_Stanley,_1st_Baron_Ashfield&diff=441448617&oldid=441261804 Point Park Civic Center (7-26-2011) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Point_Park_Civic_Center&diff=441630075&oldid=441629125 Christopher Smart's asylum confinement (7-28-2011) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Christopher_Smart%27s_asylum_confinement&diff=441639874&oldid=439093577 Horses in World War I (7-29-2011) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Horses_in_World_War_I&diff=442126910&oldid=442125741 Kenesaw Mountain Landis (8-2-2011) (despite American subject matter) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Kenesaw_Mountain_Landis&diff=442466586&oldid=442461680 Double Seven Day (8-3-2011) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Double_Seven_Day_scuffle&diff=442765343&oldid=442520160 Kylfings (8-6-2011) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Kylfings&diff=443101105&oldid=442984891 "200" (Stargate SG-1) (8-17-2011) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=200_%28Stargate_SG-1%29&diff=445428009&oldid=445427971 The Magdalen Reading (8-21-2011) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=The_Magdalen_Reading&diff=446059240&oldid=445825567 Devil May Cry (game) (8-22-2011) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Devil_May_Cry_%28video_game%29&diff=446238229&oldid=446238157 Farthest South (8-23-2011) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Farthest_South&diff=446409766&oldid=446409397 Thomas Beecham (8-24-2011) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Thomas_Beecham&diff=445717135&oldid=444614565 Albert Prince Consort (8-25-2011) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Albert,_Prince_Consort&diff=446720244&oldid=446706925 Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrel (9-7-2011) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Jonathan_Strange_%26_Mr_Norrell&diff=448722841&oldid=448606795 History of the New York Jets (9-11-2011) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=History_of_the_New_York_Jets&diff=449915117&oldid=449870277 Galerina marginata (9-12-2011) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Galerina_marginata&diff=449912536&oldid=449901100 Sherman Minton (9-15-2011) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Sherman_Minton&diff=450732008&oldid=450731924 Gumbo (9-16-2011) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Gumbo&diff=450898919&oldid=450898896 Hubert Walter (9-20-2011) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Hubert_Walter&diff=451598058&oldid=451597531 Pinkerton (album) (9-23-2011) borderline Inconsistent http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Pinkerton_%28album%29&diff=451609802&oldid=451005770 Henry Edwards (9-24-2011) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Henry_Edwards_%28entomologist%29&diff=452149827&oldid=451156626 Cirrus cloud (9-28-2011) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Cirrus_cloud&diff=452789613&oldid=452609316 Film noir (10-1-2011) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Film_noir&diff=453341644&oldid=453341345 The Author's Farce (10-4-2011) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=The_Author%27s_Farce&diff=454000779&oldid=454000768 Fridtjof Nansen (10-9-2011) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Fridtjof_Nansen&diff=454791371&oldid=454536825 "Indian Camp" (10-12-2011) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Indian_Camp&diff=455295030&oldid=455293541 Henry Wood (10-20-2011) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Henry_Wood&diff=456523731&oldid=456521852 Rudolph Cartier (10-26-2011) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Rudolph_Cartier&diff=457223393&oldid=457223115 Deinosuchus (11-1-2011) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Deinosuchus&diff=458565125&oldid=458564100 Rova of Antananarivo (11-5-2011) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Rova_of_Antananarivo&diff=459234711&oldid=459224602 Edward VII (11-8-2011) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Edward_VII&diff=459728310&oldid=459727750 SS Edmund Fitzgerald (11-9-2011) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=SS_Edmund_Fitzgerald&diff=459908981&oldid=459908308 Astonishing Stories (11-12-2011) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Astonishing_Stories&diff=460374419&oldid=460367294 George Koval (11-13-2011) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=George_Koval&diff=460555116&oldid=460554936 Ming Dynasty (11-15-2011) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Ming_Dynasty&diff=460876212&oldid=460873121 William de St-Calais (11-16-2011) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=William_de_St-Calais&diff=461041734&oldid=461041689 School for Creative and Performing Arts (11-30-2011) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=School_for_Creative_and_Performing_Arts&diff=463390348&oldid=463385250 Maple syrup (12-8-2011) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Maple_syrup&diff=464873149&oldid=464872686 Norwich Market (12-9-2011) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Norwich_Market&diff=465042997&oldid=465042385 Californication (12-10-2011) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Californication_%28album%29&diff=465216665&oldid=465215550 Cogan House Covered Bridge (12-12-2011) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Cogan_House_Covered_Bridge&diff=465556241&oldid=465377746 Amundsen South Pole expedition (12-13-2011) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Amundsen%27s_South_Pole_expedition&diff=465740104&oldid=465739119 Andalusian horse (12-14-2011) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Andalusian_horse&diff=465918861&oldid=465910798 True at First Light (12-15-2011) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=True_at_First_Light&diff=466086039&oldid=466085317 David Lewis (12-16-2011) when I stopped counting http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=David_Lewis_%28politician%29&diff=466239613&oldid=466230601 Star Wars: Episode I: Battle for Naboo (video game) (12-17-2011) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Star_Wars:_Episode_I:_Battle_for_Naboo&diff=466263319&oldid=466246878 Harold Pinter (12-23-2011) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Harold_Pinter&diff=467419518&oldid=467418645 1689 Boston Revolt (12-25-2011) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=1689_Boston_revolt&diff=467684688&oldid=467684153 Star Trek V: The Final Frontier (12-28-2011) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Star_Trek_V:_The_Final_Frontier&diff=468188609&oldid=468188303 "On the Banks of the Wabash, Far Away" (12-31-2011) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=On_the_Banks_of_the_Wabash,_Far_Away&diff=468866020&oldid=468864438 Battle of Bardia (1-2-2012) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Bardia&diff=469232606&oldid=469231549 Elvis Presley (1-7-2012) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Elvis_Presley&diff=470186693&oldid=470175625 Privy Council of the United Kingdom (1-13-2012) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Privy_Council_of_the_United_Kingdom&diff=471241045&oldid=471182728 Nick Drake (1-17-2012) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Nick_Drake&diff=471974296&oldid=471974248 American Livestock Breeds Conservancy (1-22-2012) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=American_Livestock_Breeds_Conservancy&diff=472708555&oldid=472707030 Nebula Science Fiction (Scottish) (1-26-2012) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Nebula_Science_Fiction&diff=473436139&oldid=473435923 Cyathus (1-29-2012) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Cyathus&diff=473956537&oldid=473955985 Richard barre (2-3-2012) (British with strays; three British and one American) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Richard_Barre&diff=474886277&oldid=474886010 Prince Louis of Battenberg (2-5-2012) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Prince_Louis_of_Battenberg&diff=475326114&oldid=475325599 "Cartman Gets an Anal Probe" (2-6-2012) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Cartman_Gets_an_Anal_Probe&diff=475516657&oldid=475516548 The Red Badge of Courage (2-11-2012) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=The_Red_Badge_of_Courage&diff=prev&oldid=476368570 St Nicholas, Blakeney (2-20-2012) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=St_Nicholas,_Blakeney&diff=477979422&oldid=477979311 W.E.B. DuBois (2-22-2012) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=W._E._B._Du_Bois&diff=478371205&oldid=478354906 Murasaki Shikibu (2-27-2012) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Murasaki_Shikibu&diff=479228742&oldid=479228568 Psilocybin (2-28-2012) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Psilocybin&diff=479390547&oldid=479319953 Murder of Julia Martha Thomas (3-1-2012) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Murder_of_Julia_Martha_Thomas&diff=479760302&oldid=479759722 Birth control movement in the United States (3-11-2012) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Birth_control_movement_in_the_United_States&diff=481426040&oldid=481425724 Titan (moon) (3-12-2012) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Titan_%28moon%29&diff=481598621&oldid=481529426 Conan the Barbarian (3-15-2012) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Conan_the_Barbarian_%281982_film%29&diff=482123978&oldid=482118463 Abyssinia, Henry (3-17-2012) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Abyssinia,_Henry&diff=481947765&oldid=481927593 Tom Swift (3-18-2012) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Tom_Swift&diff=482635396&oldid=482289348 Buildings of Nuffield College (3-20-2012) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Buildings_of_Nuffield_College,_Oxford&diff=482931068&oldid=482922517 Tinanenmen Square self-immolation incident (4-2-2012) (British with strays) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Tiananmen_Square_self-immolation_incident&diff=485242805&oldid=485239954 British: Parkinson's disease (4-11-2011) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkinson%27s_disease Design 1047 battlecruiser (4-19-2011) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_1047_battlecruiser Royal Maundy (4-20-2011) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Maundy Shakespeare authorship question (at least mostly British, didn't check them all) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakespeare_authorship_question USS Siboney ID-2999 (One instance of British) 4-25-2011 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Siboney_%28ID-2999%29 Empire of Brazil (mostly British but uses U.S. spelling) 4-27-2011 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire_of_Brazil "Soprano Home Movies" (despite American subject matter) 4-28-2011 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soprano_Home_Movies Sadow the Hedgehog (despite American subject matter) 5-3-2011 http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Shadow_the_Hedgehog_%28video_game%29&diff=427226299&oldid=427226178 Flowing Hair Dollar (despite American subject matter) 5-4-2011 http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Flowing_Hair_dollar&diff=427400041&oldid=427398078 William Garrow (5-5-2011) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=William_Garrow&diff=427568359&oldid=427539643 Aaliyah http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaliyah (didn't check whole thing) (5-6-2011) Virginia (5-14-2011) COME ON!! http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Virginia&diff=429075225&oldid=429075156 Netley Abbey (5-19-2011) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Netley_Abbey&diff=429873883&oldid=429870335 1906 French Grand Prix (5-20-2011) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=1906_French_Grand_Prix&diff=429981903&oldid=429973263 Asteroid belt (5-20-2011) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Asteroid_belt&diff=430138832&oldid=430136779 Boletus edulis (5-23-2011) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boletus_edulis Ernst Lindemann (5-27-2011) only one instance that could be either B or A http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Ernst_Lindemann&diff=431115735&oldid=431110499 Inyo Craters (5-27-2011) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Mono%E2%80%93Inyo_Craters&diff=431272509&oldid=431270550 Logarithm (6-4-2011) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Logarithm&diff=432615109&oldid=432614947 Arular (6-6-2011) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Arular&diff=432778588&oldid=432778392 Providence (6-7-2011) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Providence,_Rhode_Island&diff=433024268&oldid=433024018 Luton Town F.C. (6-9-2011) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Luton_Town_F.C.&diff=433327196&oldid=433246446 Makinti Napanangka (6-10-2011) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Makinti_Napanangka&diff=433646765&oldid=433646755 Alexandra of Denmark http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Alexandra_of_Denmark&diff=433834458&oldid=433828630 Gamma-ray burst (6-17-2011) One instance of either, all others indeterminate. http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Gamma-ray_burst&diff=434861739&oldid=434857487 Thyrotoxic periodic paralysis http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Thyrotoxic_periodic_paralysis&diff=435255783&oldid=435255362 Cerro Azul (6-21-2011) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Cerro_Azul_%28Chile_volcano%29&diff=435671715&oldid=435671007 Holy Thorn Reliquary (6-22-2011) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Holy_Thorn_Reliquary&diff=435739056&oldid=435736274 Peregrine Falcon (6-23-2011) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Peregrine_Falcon&diff=435973023&oldid=435957825 Coenred of Mercia (6-24-2011) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Coenred_of_Mercia&diff=436064206&oldid=436012864 SMS Baden (6-25-2011) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=SMS_Baden_%281915%29&diff=436251416&oldid=436168395 Buildings of Jesus College, Oxford (6-26-2011) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Buildings_of_Jesus_College,_Oxford&diff=435925297&oldid=435141977 Alexander of Lincoln (6-29-2011) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Alexander_of_Lincoln&diff=436968947&oldid=436882073 U.S. Route 491 (7-4-2011) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=U.S._Route_491&diff=437682846&oldid=437682200 River Parrett (7-6-2011) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=River_Parrett&diff=438166053&oldid=438165496 "Doomsday" (Dr. Who) 7-8-2011 http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Doomsday_%28Doctor_Who%29&diff=438407764&oldid=438407162 Lacarius volemus (7-9-2011) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Lactarius_volemus&diff=438654343&oldid=438524520 James E. Boyd (7-17-2011) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=James_E._Boyd_%28scientist%29&diff=440018703&oldid=440007956 Ambato earthquake (7-18-2011) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=1949_Ambato_earthquake&action=history Painted turtle (7-19-2011) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Painted_turtle&action=history Peake the Elder (7-22-2011) as befits its British subject matter http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Robert_Peake_the_elder&diff=440761659&oldid=436874414 Maximian (7-24-2011) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Maximian&diff=441264782&oldid=441263884 Parasaurolophus (7-31-2011) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Parasaurolophus&diff=441888937&oldid=441422983 Egyptian temple (8-1-2011) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Egyptian_temple&diff=442545211&oldid=442545118 Dengue fever (8-4-2011) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Dengue_fever&diff=443106892&oldid=443106322 HMS Lion (8-5-2011) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=HMS_Lion_%281910%29&diff=442766015&oldid=440407280 Choe Bu (8-13-2011) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Choe_Bu&diff=444725371&oldid=444725342 Hoysala literature (8-14-2011) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Hoysala_literature&diff=444886637&oldid=444126718 Red-necked Grebe (8-20-2011) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Red-necked_Grebe&diff=445907943&oldid=445907810 Bouin Zahra earthquake (8-26-2011) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=2002_Bou%27in-Zahra_earthquake&diff=445875550&oldid=445839429 Atlantic hurricane (8-27-2011) (only one instance) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=1911_Atlantic_hurricane_season&diff=447059838&oldid=445720749 Hemming Cartulary (8-29-2011) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Hemming%27s_Cartulary&diff=445722329&oldid=435341425 Eastborne manslaughter (9-3-2011) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Eastbourne_manslaughter&diff=447907709&oldid=419732136 American Airlines Flight 11 (9-10-2011) One incident http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=American_Airlines_Flight_11&diff=449662338&oldid=449660324 Missing No. (9-13-2011) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=MissingNo.&diff=450402497&oldid=450402287 Bodiam Castle (9-14-2011) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Bodiam_Castle&diff=450564526&oldid=450562754 Rhabdomyolysis (9-19-2011) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Rhabdomyolysis&diff=451419757&oldid=451284248 Zanzibar Revolution (9-21-2011) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Zanzibar_Revolution&diff=451629799&oldid=451604248 Rudolf Caracciola (9-25-2011) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Rudolf_Caracciola&diff=452449552&oldid=452449062 22nd Regiment Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry (9-27-2011) COME ON!! http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=22nd_Regiment_Massachusetts_Volunteer_Infantry&diff=452720506&oldid=452427389 Northrop YF-23 (9-29-2011) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Northrop_YF-23&diff=453126834&oldid=453083011 Free State of Galveston (9-30-2011) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Free_State_of_Galveston&diff=453299663&oldid=453299497 1941 Florida Hurricane (10-2-2011) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=1941_Florida_hurricane&diff=453611975&oldid=453225662 "Just Like Heaven" (10-6-2011) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Just_Like_Heaven_%28song%29&diff=454030642&oldid=453930402 Triton (moon) (10-7-2011) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Triton_%28moon%29&diff=454458357&oldid=454458131 Waddeson Road railway station (10-8-2011) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Waddesdon_Road_railway_station&diff=454339976&oldid=436266480 1964 Brinks Hotel bombing (10-14-2011) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=1964_Brinks_Hotel_bombing&diff=446102945&oldid=446101259 Crown Fountain (10-16-2011) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Crown_Fountain&diff=455552448&oldid=455535150 Royal National College for the Blind (10-18-2011) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Royal_National_College_for_the_Blind&diff=456277565&oldid=456275765 Abdul Karim "the Munshi" (10-19-2011) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Abdul_Karim_%28the_Munshi%29&diff=456439614&oldid=456439441 Calabozos (10-22-2011) Only one instance http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Calabozos&diff=456760432&oldid=456760062 HMAS Australia (10-24-2011) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=HMAS_Australia_%281911%29&diff=457238436&oldid=457225181 Northern Bald Ibis (10-25-2011) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Northern_Bald_Ibis&diff=457410434&oldid=457409240 Manchester United (10-29-2011) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Manchester_United_F.C.&diff=458171664&oldid=458160346 The Human Centipede (First Sequence) (10-30-2011) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=The_Human_Centipede_%28First_Sequence%29&diff=458320952&oldid=458313570 1991 Perfect Storm (10-31-2011) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=1991_Perfect_Storm&diff=458208309&oldid=458202459 L'ange de Nisida (11-2-2011) One stray American in notes. http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=L%27ange_de_Nisida&diff=458654151&oldid=458003614 Battle of Lipantitlán (11-3-2011) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Lipantitl%C3%A1n&diff=458895667&oldid=458895263 Battle of Tippecanoe (11-6-2011) Possibly one stray http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Tippecanoe&diff=459382298&oldid=459347429 Achtung Baby (11-18-2011) All British until I stopped counting http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Achtung_Baby&diff=461464769&oldid=461464536 M-6 (Michigan highway) (11-19-2011) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=M-6_%28Michigan_highway%29&diff=461517056&oldid=461516721 Canoe River train crash (11-20-2011) Canadian subject http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Canoe_River_train_crash&diff=461696994&oldid=461696898 Nathanial Parker Willis (11-22-2011) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Nathaniel_Parker_Willis&action=history RNA interference (11-24-2011) Only one instance http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=RNA_interference&diff=462341941&oldid=462339413 Montague Druitt (11-27-2011) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Montague_Druitt&diff=462820507&oldid=462820498 Thomas the Slav (11-29-2011) Even periods that should be inside the q marks are outside. Improper British. http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Thomas_the_Slav&diff=463203834&oldid=463203272 Macaroni Penguin (12-1-2011) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Macaroni_Penguin&diff=463597023&oldid=463596841 Saturn (12-3-2011) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Saturn&diff=463921313&oldid=463920390 McDonnel XF-85 Goblin (12-5-2011) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=McDonnell_XF-85_Goblin&diff=464313127&oldid=464313087 USS Arizona (12-6-2011) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=USS_Arizona_%28BB-39%29&diff=464490690&oldid=464488935 Xa Loi Pagoda Raids (12-7-2011) When I stopped counting. http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=X%C3%A1_L%E1%BB%A3i_Pagoda_raids&diff=464672648&oldid=464672544 Gillingham F.C. (12-11-2011) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Gillingham_F.C.&diff=465393341&oldid=465393318 McCormick Tribute Plaza & Ice Rink (12-19-2011) British http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=McCormick_Tribune_Plaza_%26_Ice_Rink&diff=466812150&oldid=466808842 "A Rugrats Chanukah" (12-20-2011) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=A_Rugrats_Chanukah&diff=466953459&oldid=466951426 Issy Smith (12-21-2011) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Issy_Smith&diff=467117632&oldid=467111525 The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker (11-25-2011) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=The_Legend_of_Zelda:_The_Wind_Waker&diff=462486506&oldid=462233922 Red-capped Robin (12-24-2011) one instance http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Red-capped_Robin&diff=467588679&oldid=467586872 Peace dollar (12-27-2011) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Peace_dollar&diff=467999935&oldid=467985915 2006 Gator Bowl (1-1-2012) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=2006_Gator_Bowl&diff=469031752&oldid=469031068 Justus (1-4-2012) one instance http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Justus&diff=469630650&oldid=469624969 Sarah Trimmer (1-5-2012) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Sarah_Trimmer&diff=469822888&oldid=469822036 The Green Child (1-8-2012) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=The_Green_Child&diff=470354861&oldid=470354000 Comsognathus (1-11-2012) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Compsognathus&diff=470901765&oldid=470779647 Diffuse parabronchiolitis (1-14-2012) two instances http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Diffuse_panbronchiolitis&diff=471429260&oldid=471427634 Mauna Kea (1-16-2012) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Mauna_Kea&diff=471791984&oldid=471788711 Henry Cornelius Burnett (1-19-2012) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Henry_Cornelius_Burnett&diff=472166154&oldid=472165615 James Nesbitt (1-21-2012) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=James_Nesbitt&diff=472528597&oldid=472483068 Warkworth Castle (1-24-2012) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Warkworth_Castle&diff=473089525&oldid=473089412 Otto Julius Zobel (1-24-2012) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Otto_Julius_Zobel&diff=473608930&oldid=473527379 Liberty Head nickel (1-30-2012) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Liberty_Head_nickel&diff=474130974&oldid=474130774 Germany women's national football team (1-31-2012) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Germany_women%27s_national_football_team&diff=474317191&oldid=474316974 Pathways into Darkness (2-2-2012) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Pathways_into_Darkness&diff=474674870&oldid=474674268 Cattle Egret (2-13-2012) one instance http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Cattle_Egret&diff=476757424&oldid=476757072 Tom Driberg (2-14-2012) until I stopped counting http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Tom_Driberg&diff=476945752&oldid=476943957 New York State Route 28 (2-18-2012) two instances http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=New_York_State_Route_28&diff=477630030&oldid=477614464 Texas Tech University (2-19-2012) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Texas_Tech_University&diff=477802278&oldid=477800616 Nyon Conference (2-21-2012) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Nyon_Conference&diff=478166641&oldid=478166449 Malm FF (2-23-2012) one instance http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Malm%C3%B6_FF&diff=478540662&oldid=478528034 Alboin (2-25-2012) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Alboin&diff=478892179&oldid=478891667 Warren County (2-29-2012) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Warren_County,_Indiana&diff=479566307&oldid=479566079 Ultima Underworld: The Stygian Abyss (3-13-2012) when I stopped counting http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Ultima_Underworld:_The_Stygian_Abyss&diff=481767808&oldid=481765272 Liverpool F.C. (3-14-2012) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Liverpool_F.C.&action=history Ernest Shackleton (3-16-2012) when I stopped counting http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Ernest_Shackleton&diff=482293042&oldid=482292345 Voluntary Human Extinction Movement (3-23-2012) when I stopped counting http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Voluntary_Human_Extinction_Movement&action=history Admiralty Islands campaign (3-25-2012) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Admiralty_Islands_campaign&diff=483953860&oldid=483950444 Court of Chancery (3-27-2012) when I stopped counting http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Court_of_Chancery&diff=484277210&oldid=483921863 Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception (3-29-2012) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Cathedral_of_the_Immaculate_Conception_%28Moscow%29&diff=484623498&oldid=484623466 Talbot Baines Reed (4-1-2012) When I stopped counting. (British) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talbot_Baines_Reed&diff=485076111&oldid=485075964 None: Hurricane Isabel (4-15-2011) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Isabel American Goldfinch (5-15-2011) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Goldfinch USS President (5-15-2011) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=USS_President_%281800%29&diff=429325722&oldid=429324206 Tropical Storm Alberto (6-16-2011) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Tropical_Storm_Alberto_%282006%29&diff=434684875&oldid=434684865 Ariel (moon) (6-27-2011) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Ariel_%28moon%29&diff=436591756&oldid=436570165 Primates (7-5-2011) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Primate&diff=437967186&oldid=437966973 Numerical weather prediction (8-9-2011) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Numerical_weather_prediction&diff=443745302&oldid=443361968 766th Independent Infantry Regiment (North Korea) (8-18-2011) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=766th_Independent_Infantry_Regiment_%28North_Korea%29&diff=445604896&oldid=445604789 Second Ostend Raid (9-17-2011) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Second_Ostend_Raid&diff=451064210&oldid=450848568 Nazko earthquakes (9-26-2011) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=2007%E2%80%932008_Nazko_earthquakes&diff=452611919&oldid=452611755 2010 Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup Final (10-3-2011) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=2010_Lamar_Hunt_U.S._Open_Cup_Final&diff=452900728&oldid=452900676 Battle of Valcour Island (10-10-2011) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Valcour_Island&diff=454932406&oldid=454409922 Tumber Ridge (11-11-2011) Canadian subject and spelling, instances of British in notes http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Tumbler_Ridge,_British_Columbia&diff=460217715&oldid=460214452 Tropical Storm Barry (12-2-2011) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Tropical_Storm_Barry_%282001%29&diff=463749701&oldid=463749658 Lavanify (12-22-2011) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Lavanify&diff=467289457&oldid=467289230 Typhoon Tip (12-30-2011) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Typhoon_Tip&diff=468696800&oldid=468696230 Loggerhead sea turtle (1-3-2012) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Loggerhead_sea_turtle&action=history Variegated Fairywren (1-20-2012) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Variegated_Fairywren&diff=472356298&oldid=472356205 Thurisind (1-23-2012) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Thurisind&diff=472898906&oldid=472897696 Big Butte Creek (2-9-2012) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Big_Butte_Creek&diff=476044634&oldid=476043596 Leopard 2E (2-15-2012) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Leopard_2E&diff=477105271&oldid=477105258 Battle of Barrosa (3-4-2012) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Barrosa&diff=480242371&oldid=480242359 Cyclone Elita (3-6-2012) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Cyclone_Elita&diff=480590756&oldid=480590721 Pigeon photography (3-31-2012) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Pigeon_photography&diff=484918215&oldid=484916811 Tryon Creek (4-3-2012) (None) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Tryon_Creek&diff=485428534&oldid=485428263 Other: Toronto Raptors (One incidence of "British," consistent with Canadian) 5-10-2011 http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Toronto_Raptors&diff=428415343&oldid=428415006 Tiny Thompson (5-23-2011) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Tiny_Thompson&diff=430596982&oldid=430557167 Adrian Cole (RAAF officer) 6-18-2011 LOOK UP AUSTRALIAN PRACTICE http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Adrian_Cole_%28RAAF_officer%29&diff=435011948&oldid=435011890 Theoren Fleury (6-28-2011) Canadian, but consistent with British http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Theoren_Fleury&diff=436767125&oldid=436766971 John Brownlee as Attorney-General of Alberta (6-30-2011) One instance consistent with American and two with British http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=John_Brownlee_as_Attorney-General_of_Alberta&diff=436966735&oldid=433677810 Neil Hamilton (7-14-2011) Australian http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Neil_Hamilton_Fairley&diff=439548875&oldid=439540013 Canadian heraldry (7-21-2011) Canadian but consistent with American http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Canadian_heraldry&diff=440046224&oldid=435145046 Section 116 of the Constitution of Australia (8-8-2011) Consistent with British with strays http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Section_116_of_the_Constitution_of_Australia&diff=443780312&oldid=443780098 Houtman Abrolhos (8-11-2011) Consistent with British http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=North_Island_%28Houtman_Abrolhos%29&diff=443889804&oldid=443826250 Air-tractor sledge (8-16-2011) Consistent with British with strays http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Air-tractor_sledge&diff=445111136&oldid=445110785 Don Valley Parkway (8-30-2011) Consistent with British with strays http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Don_Valley_Parkway&diff=447573087&oldid=445722633 Edmund Herring (9-1-2011) Consistent with British http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Edmund_Herring&diff=447948352&oldid=447398512 Silverchair (9-9-2011) Consistent with British with strays http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Silverchair&diff=449356560&oldid=449173917 Telopea speciosissima (10-5-2011) Consistent with British http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Telopea_speciosissima&diff=454157015&oldid=454156884 "Mother and Child Reunion" (Degrassi: The Next Generation) (10-13-2011) Consistent with British http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Mother_and_Child_Reunion_%28Degrassi:_The_Next_Generation%29&diff=455313678&oldid=455237647 Liberal Movement (Australia) (10-21-2011) Consistent with British with strays http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Liberal_Movement_%28Australia%29&diff=456763079&oldid=456761159 Lester Brian (10-28-2011) Consistent with British with strays http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Lester_Brain&diff=457902139&oldid=457902131 Harry Cobby (11-10-2011) Consistent with British http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Harry_Cobby&diff=460057978&oldid=460057789 Hod Stuart (11-23-2011) Two American and maybe four British; would be "Inconsistent" http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Hod_Stuart&diff=462197718&oldid=462187231 2nd Canadian Infantry Division (11-26-2011) Only one instance, that consistent with British http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=2nd_Canadian_Infantry_Division&diff=462668013&oldid=462667710 Charles Stewart (Canadian politician) (12-29-2011) Inconsistent http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Charles_Stewart_%28Canadian_politician%29&diff=468369852&oldid=468369549 Mathew Charles Lamb (1-10-2012) Canadian, consistent with British with strays. http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Mathew_Charles_Lamb&diff=470713821&oldid=470557115 Art Ross (1-13-2012) Canadian, consistent with British (only one instance) http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Art_Ross&diff=471068226&oldid=471064807 Australian Cattle Dog (1-25-2012) Australian, consistent with British in one instance http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Australian_Cattle_Dog&diff=473260352&oldid=473259646 Trevor Linden (2-10-2012) Canadian, two British, two American http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Trevor_Linden&diff=476223513&oldid=476221439 John McCauley (2-26-2012) Australian, consisted with British when I stopped counting http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=John_McCauley&diff=479044351&oldid=479042816 Keven O'Halloran (3-2-2012) Australian, one British and one American http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Kevin_O%27Halloran&diff=479919164&oldid=479914979 Banksia cuneata (3-5-2012) Australian, two British instances http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Banksia_cuneata&diff=480430975&oldid=480425340 Tom Derrick (3-19-2012) Consistent with British http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Tom_Derrick&diff=482813579&oldid=482813471 Charlie Macartney (3-24-2012) Australian, consistent with British with strays http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Charlie_Macartney&diff=483773414&oldid=483773388

Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:55, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

As for moving on, go ahead. However, if what you really want to do is encourage others to stop posting, I find it helps if your own last post does not contain anything that requires a response, like a question or insult. Example: In your last post, you called my previous post "nonsensical," so I thought it best to explain why it isn't, and you asked me for information, which I had to post to provide. Now I have asked you a few things, so I wouldn't consider it inappropriate at all for you to respond, but if you don't feel like doing so anyway, I promise I won't take that silence as an indication that you have changed your mind about this issue. Darkfrog24 (talk) 05:10, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

You're assuming I cared whether you attempted to prolong the discussion. I thought it was pretty clear that I did not. I'll just point out yet another straw man and logic error on your part, since you actually raised something worth refuting and easy to refute again: I never claimed anything about how the sources should be weighted (in fact I stated explicitly, at least most of the dozen+ times I've made this point, that all the sources in question are reliable ones), so arguing against how I'm (in your imagination) weighting them is you arguing against something you made up. The basic logic of this just isn't getting through to you. Let's try a simple analogy: When 20 people say "Jim's alive, I saw him just a while ago", but a 21st has Jim's corpse in his arms, announcing "nope, here he is, quite dead", then the 20 other people are not magically right, no matter how much they seemed to be in agreement, and no matter how influential they are as citizens compared to the one with dead Jim in hand. Multiple sources that do not account for a fact cannot trump a smaller number that actually bothered. Here it is again: If Suzy, Jimmy, and Qwan still think that Santa Claus is real, but José found out the truth this year, S., J., and Q. are not somehow correct. Until you can absorb things like this, there's no point in continuing to try to reach consensus with you, I simply need to refute you irrational positions periodically so they're not taken seriously and don't confuse other editors into believing the dead wrong things you're saying about quotation style and the sources for it. You're not "waiting on [me]" to cite anything; an endless stream of sources about this are cited at you, and you just imagine them away. Your farcical WP:OR re-interpretation of the Guardian piece is a case in point, an defies all reason. You're not just rationalizing, you are not seeing the facts right in front of your face. They're going in one eye and out the other. The article went over a bunch of British style guides and how they differ fro the WP interpretation, but all you see is Guardian isn't criticizing WP when it is criticizing WP, and it isn't contrasting WP's false take on what British style is with a number of actual British style manuals, it's disagreeing with one example as Guardian would do it and no one one else. All I can do at this point is throw my hands up, say "WTF?!", and try to ignore you.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  09:48, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

But if the 20 people (or even one of them) saw Jim alive after the one person said he was dead, then they should be believed and the one should not. This is what I mean by "differing significantly in quality." The person who saw Jim, alive or dead, most recently is the highest-quality source. You say you don't like straw man arguments, but here you are using legends and fiction as your arguments, when we can see that punctuation styles are real (or at least as real as language and writing are; they're human inventions). We wouldn't use young children as RS on Wikipedia for Santa Claus or anything else. A better analogy would be "If twenty history books and archaeological papers say that the ancient Romans used this building technique, but a twenty-first says they used that one instead, we should of course read all of them and maybe make a note of the minority view, but the professional consensus is more likely to be right." A significant difference in quality would in this case be if the one paper expertly and specifically refutes all the others, if it is brand new and being hailed as a breakthrough in the academic community and the authors of at least some of the other sources, etc. But if the one paper is of the same quality as the others, then we should go with the others.

You keep saying "an endless stream of sources [agrees with me, SmCandlish]." I don't know what you're talking about. What sources agree with you? Where is this stream? Please state the title or post a link to one of these sources, please. Accept that I cannot read your mind.

Yes, and from my perspective, you are not accepting the facts in front of your face. I've shown you the APA, the AMA, Chicago, other style guides, and you haven't changed your mind. At least I've actually shown them to you. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:26, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

The data are interesting. As I told SMcC recently, I'm not using LQ in the book I'm writing with Cambridge University Press, but I'm happy to use it in WP, where it has been the consensus style for a long time. I'm American. My publisher is British (but my editor is in the New York office). Anyway, I accept what the Penguin Guide to Punctuation tells me: "There are at least two schools of thought on this, which I shall call the logical view and the conventional view. American usage adheres closely to the conventional view; British usage prefers the logical view, but, as we shall see, with one curious exception." It's OK with me that the views have this correlation, as long as we recognize that there is lots of crossover. The conventional view is not American, it's just older. Americans are moving more conservatively than Brits in adopting the logical view. Even I move conservatively in my own book. None of this is reason to fight so hard to go back on WP's consensus to be logical in its styling of quotes. Dicklyon (talk) 06:48, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh! Thanks for the additional source (and one that again shows that BQ isn't LQ, just close to it). I hadn't thought to check that one yet. I just got Academic Press/Elsevier's The Manual of of Scientific Style (Rabinowitz & Vogel 2009, US edition, and I'm not sure if there's any other). PS: If I were writing a book for a largely American audience and with an American editor, I'd likely also use typesetters' quotation, if the material did not involve a lot of quotations, or wasn't heavy with material that otherwise needed LQ for accuracy because it used a lot of string literals.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  09:48, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

What it sounds like Dicklyon is saying is that Penguin refers to American style by another name. That would mean it has more than one name, not that it is not really American. That seems to be Dicklyon's own opinion (to which he is as entitled as anyone else). Dicklyon, did Penguin say "This isn't American" or did it just prefer to call it "conventional"?

If I were writing a book for British audiences, I would strongly consider using British style. However, for Wikipedia, I think ENGVAR is best. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:26, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

If British usage prefers what Pengiun calls the logical view, then it's not British, it's just preferred by the British. Basic logic, Darkfrog. If ice cream is preferred over popsicles by the French, that doesn't make ice cream French. Please adjust your reality filters. Your efforts to nationalize this fail spectacularly every time you attempt it. When sources demonstrate that there's not actually a strong national tie, the answer isn't "Theres's a strong national tie, so ENGVAR applies". NB: This is really the same point Peter Coxhead made to you earlier: LQ is not British; aspects of it have in recent generations come be imported into various British styles. Do we need three editors to explain it do you? 12? 50? When does it ever register?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  21:31, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

The system in question is majority use in Britain and was originally popularized by two British guys in a book called The King's English, and the other system is overwhelming majority use in America. That should be enough to make calling them British and American a non-controversial issue.

What source demonstrates that there isn't a strong national tie? Please cite it. If there is a source that says "This isn't really British and American," then that would be relevant here.

Sources that do indicate a strong national tie include CMoS, Oxford Dictionaries, AMA, APA, etc. etc. They both refer to this system as British and American and describe it as such. If, as Dicklyon says, the Penguin Guide's actual words are "American usage adheres closely to the conventional view; British usage prefers the logical view," then it also indicates a national tie. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:05, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Errors caused by particular citation styles

Someone complained about lack of "proof" that TQ can introduce errors. As noted earlier, external RS tell us this, so that matter is already settled. And we don't really need proof of that which is self-evident, anyway. However, it's quite easy to find on WP. As just one example, the article Samuel Adams included a blatant misquote because of the application of TQ incorrectly to WP prose: "I know of no line that can be drawn," he said, "between the supreme authority of Parliament and the total independence of the colonies." Removing the editorial insertion, this resolves to "I know of no line that can be drawn, between the supreme authority of Parliament and the total independence of the colonies." But the actual quotation is "I know of no line that can be drawn between the supreme authority of Parliament and the total independence of the colonies.", without the bogus comma. And in Adams's era, it was actually perfectly acceptable for him to have had a comma there. The only way to assure 100% accurate quoting in Wikipedia, and by people repurposing WP content, is to use LQ. This is the principal reason we do it and always have done it since the early days of there being an MoS at all. No one cares much about this in journalism or fiction; we throw newspapers away after reading them (unless we're hoarders), and not that many people refer to old ones (it's much more a Wikipedian habit than a general public one!), meanwhile only fandom geeks go around quoting fictional statements all the time. When quoting non-fictional statements in an essentially permanent record that millions of people use every day as a reference work, the accuracy matters.

Two other quotations in the same article, of the same "foo," bar, "baz." form, are correct under LQ, preserving the commas that appear in the original material (I checked), and breaking for editorial commentary between two halves of the quotation at that point. I.e., LQ, TQ, and both forms of BQ all coincide on agreeing that those two cases are correct. The case illustrated in red in the previous paragraph would be incorrect in LQ and one form of BQ, but correct in TQ and acceptable in the other form of BQ, despite the falsification. Anyway, this first case, the one incorrect in LQ, has been corrected to "I know of no line that can be drawn", he said, "between the supreme authority of Parliament and the total independence of the colonies." [48] I ran into several cases of this sort, plus a notable number of cases where truncated snippets were misleadingly presented as if they were complete statements (see Emerson example in earlier thread), and this is rarely evident without digging up the original source, which is an additional very strong reason to not use TQ here. But one example of each sort of problem has already been provided, and this is sufficient.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  06:48, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Diffs please. Please cite link to original. EDIT: Never mind; found my own. [49] There is indeed no comma before "between." However, I must add that American punctuation does not claim that the comma is part of the original material.

No, the only way to be 100% accurate is to check the original content every time. The reason British style is required is because early MoSers were attempting a split the difference between British and American. They believed that British style always required single quotation marks, reserving double for quotes within quotes (it doesn't), so they went with "American" double quotes and British punctuation placement.

As for "truncated snippets," British and American systems are equal. Chopping off words causes problems no matter what.

Let's say that this error is legit. I also found errors in Statue of Liberty that can be attributed to the rule WP:LQ: [50] The original source used American punctuation [51], but the Wikipedia article changed it to British.

Wikipedia article blockquote: "Liberty enlightening the world", indeed!

Cleveland Gazette (source): "Liberty enlightening the world," indeed!

Wikipedia article blockquote: "ku-kluxed", perhaps

Cleveland Gazette (source): "ku-kluxed," perhaps

Wikipedia article blockquote: "enlightening the world", or even Patagonia

Cleveland Gazette (source): "enlightening the world," or even Patagonia

By your reasoning, SmC, WP:LQ causes errors. And I didn't have to dig to find this case. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:57, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Invalid examples. Those are not examples of LQ, they're examples of someone misquoting. LQ actually requires retaining the comma inside, as '"Liberty enlightening the world," indeed!', as in the original material. I think you simply do not understand what LQ is and means, and this may have a lot to do with why you've been railing against it for so many years in ways that garner no support, since your arguments about it are confused. To spell it out, the example I provided is an illustration of the systemic problem innately inherent in TQ: No matter who is using it, it will inevitably lead to misquotations by innocent users believing what WP tells them is the quotation, regardless of the level of intelligence and care exhibited by the quoter, because the flaw is in that quotation system itself and cannot be avoided other than by never, ever splitting a quotation except where it already contained a comma. The examples you provided are nothing but a case of a lone user not knowing how to quote properly (or perhaps not knowing how to use AWB correctly, whatever the case may be); it's individual operator error (PEBKAC), and has nothing to do with the quotation system. You also completely missed the point about truncated quotations: In LQ, you know they're truncated, because the terminal punctuation is outside; in TQ, you can never know (short of having the original source), because false punctuation is inserted where it does not belong, and the modified quotation is indistinguishable from one that did actually terminate with that period (exclamation point, etc.) If consensus actually agreed with you that quotation accuracy was not important and that users should not feel they can rely on WP to be accurate with them, we would not use LQ, we would not have the principle of minimal change, and we would not permit anything but online, freely accessible sources. Q.E.D. Next, your assumptions about why we use LQ are demonstrably false, as is shown by every discussion that's been had about them for years. Whether the very first reason given for advancing LQ was as a compromise between UK and US styles is completely independent of all the other rationales (principally quotation accuracy, but there are others) that have also be provided for it. You're engaging in a form of the fallacy of confusion of correlation and causation. Analogy: If I move to Madagascar to take a job, and then later fall in love with the place, and become a naturalized citizen, and die there and am buried there, it would not be correct to say "SMcCandlish is in Madagascar solely for work." Anyway, I note that you've not addressed any of the points I raised and demonstrated, and concede that the error I provided an example of "is legit", so I rest my case and moving on to more constructive things. PS: Your perpetual demands for diffs and other "proof" (of material you can simply look up yourself, for free, in moments) in casual discussions like this which are not article content disputes, is a direct and uncivil assumption of bad faith, an accusation that whoever you're dealing with is a liar or is mentally deficient. It needs to stop, and you've been asked to stop before, more than once. The time is now.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  18:22, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

They are examples of Wikipedia's rule, which is that punctuation must be placed according to grammatical sense (the British system). But you don't have to take my word for it:

• Journal of Irish and Scottish Studies: "Punctuation marks are placed inside the quotation marks only if the sense of the punctuation is part of the quotation; this system is referred to as logical quotation." (More sources upon request)

What is likely to have happened in Statue of Liberty is that some editor saw that Wikipedia always requires British style and imposed it on a direct quote without realizing that original punctuation should be preserved. This Wikieditor did not, however, use British style incorrectly.

I could certainly believe that this is a case of a lone user who doesn't know how to punctuate properly or individual operator error, but the same could be said of the example you cited. It seems likely that the Samuel Adams problem comes from a person used to the British system who forgot that the American style does not indicate that final commas are part of the quoted material.

I most certainly do not believe that quotation accuracy is not important. What you seem to have trouble accepting is that, in American English, the period or comma is part of the quotation process, not part of the quoted material. No one is claiming that Sam Adams put that comma there.

Yes, you found one error for which American punctuation may have been a contributing cause and I found three for which Wikipedia's overemphasis on British style is a contributing cause.

I'm sorry but what points that you raised? I responded to a lot of your posts here. Which specific issue would you like me to address? You have put effort into addressing mine and it is reasonable for me to at least try to reciprocate.

I certainly don't mean to accuse you of bad faith, SmC (except for the issue I raised on your talk page yesterday), but from my perspective you often misinterpret what you see, like with David Marsh's Guardian article. I don't think you're right, but I don't think you're lying—you believe what you say. However, I also see nothing wrong with asking for proof that you actually saw what you said you saw. You and I tend to look at the same text and interpret it differently. Also remember that I don't shy away from offering diffs and sources myself. Don't be insulted that I don't take your opinion as fact; I don't expect you to do so with mine. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:44, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I found this while I was looking up my raw data from 2012. This isn't an error per se, but it's certainly a problem that can be attributed to WP:LQ.[52] British style is harder to learn, teach and use than American. Darkfrog24 (talk) 05:00, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

@Darkfrog24: British style is harder to learn, teach and use than American – this is simply not true. In Wikipedia's version of LQ, the placement of the five punctuation marks .,;!? is governed by precisely the same rules. In TQ, the placement of ;!? and the placement of ., are governed by different rules. The placement of ;!? is equally hard to learn, teach and use. The easy rule to learn is that . and , always come before the closing quote mark. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:00, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Are there any precise and accurate things that are not a bit more challenging than sloppy and careless ones? I challenge you to name an example. This "it's a little harder to have this rule than to not have it" is not an argument again LQ, its an argument against all of MOS and, really, all rules, everywhere. The fact that care and accuracy have a price (and a small one at that) is not a rationale to abandon them.

Anyway, this is absolute, concrete proof that you do not understand what LQ is at all, and thus cannot understand and will not believe that it differs from BQ, no matter how many sources make it clear to everyone else: "... Wikipedia's rule, which is that punctuation must be placed according to grammatical sense (the British system). The punctuate-according-to-sense system is in fact the British system, but it is not the Wikipedia system and not LQ. LQ is the punctuate-according-to-the-original system. The very distinction between them is that BQ defaults to doing what the original did, but permits alterations "according to the sense" of the quoting sentence and what the writer wants to do with it; LQ requires doing what the original did, without such alterations (except ellipses and [square-bracketed] changes, which won't be mistaken for the original text). The difference (in this one regard; there are others, including single-the-double vs. double-then-single) between the Oxford and main British journalism variations of BQ are how much alteration they'll permit. Amusingly, the Guardian article you say you've pored over explained this pretty clearly, though it's also of course immediately self-evident by reading the style guides in question. Finally, you still did not understand a thing I said about the TQ error this section begins with; this is a case of a lone user who doesn't know how to punctuate properly or individual operator error, but the same could be said of the example you cited is obviously not true. In fact it's logically impossible, for reasons already explained to you twice. PS: you found one error ... I found three – Um, no. I've found this sort of error many times, from many editors, I just presented a single case as an example (and said so, after providing completely different kind of example), because it's an in-built flaw in the TQ system that bites everyone who uses it. You found one guy repeating one error in the same article (i.e., one error), and it's an isolated case of someone falsifying a quotation (by LQ standards) by following the actual British standards, not LQ at all. It's like you've become convinced that cats and ferrets are the same thing, and you really like dogs. No matter what proof you're shown that ferrets are not cats, you refuse to come anywhere near a real cat because a "cat" (actually a ferret) once bit you.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  09:48, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

In my experience, Peter C, American style's "Put periods and commas inside quotation marks" is considered very simple by people trying to learn, and "placement by grammatical sense" gets "huh?" Maybe it's because exclamation points and question marks are less quiet than periods and commas, but people generally find the grammatical sense rule less confusing with them, to the point where I've seen some sources explain British style with "treat them like question marks."

This person who came to WT:MOS looking for help with WP:LQ thought the rule was confusing, and they weren't the only one to come here for help, so we can reasonably infer that at least a few Wikipedians find it confusing.

SmC, American style is not sloppy and careless; it is as accurate as British style when used correctly (and when used incorrectly, both are inaccurate). If you really want Wikipedia to look professional and accurate, then it should allow correct punctuation instead of forbidding it.

SmC, please cool it with the "not true" bit. I am saying "The error that you pointed out could easily be a case of a lone editor who doesn't know how the punctuation style works, probably because they're used to Wikipedia's WP:LQ rule and forgot that in American punctuation the comma is part of the process and not part of the content," so yes it can be said. How is that logically impossible? And what do you think you explained twice? What are you talking about?

Vilifying systems that you don't happen to like isn't going to help us build a better Wikipedia. Look at Peter and Dicklyon. They've both managed to express themselves assertively without becoming crass or impolite.

I have repeatedly shown you sources that say "BQ and LQ are two words for the same thing," you have never shown any sources that say "No, they're different." That is why I believe that they are two words for the same thing. If you think you've done so, please just say the name of the source and if possible post a link. Until then, please stop acting as if I am behaving unreasonably. It is not unreasonable to believe what one reads in reliable sources, even if that differs from the opinions of other Wikieditors. You have a right to your opinion, but it is only an opinion. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:35, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

You don't get to dictate how I and others use the English language. When something is not correct, true, accurate, factual, [insert various synonyms], its perfectly appropriate to refer to them as incorrect, not correct, untrue, not true, inaccurate, not accurate, counterfactual, false, [insert various synonyms]. WP is not written by people learning how to write, so whether the TQ system is easier to learn is irrelevant. WP:Competence is required. Anyone's who's head asplode upon encountering a very common stylistic variation (or even an uncommon by complicated one, which LQ is neither) is unlikely to be able to be a constructive WP editor. It is certainly true that "placement by grammatical sense" and similar phrases don't make a lot of sense to everyone (Guardian criticized one of its competitors for this, in the same article we've already referred to several times). Fortunately, that has nothing to do with LQ at all which does not use that rule, only with the Oxford and British journalism styles. Virtually every rule, in MOS and in any other WP guideline or policy, is found confusing by a few editors. That's among the reasons they have talk pages and discussions on them. It's not a rationale for deleting rules or making radical changes to them, but explaining them. Consensus changes when all the Wikipedians who care about something hammer out an adjustment; it doesn't happen when one particular person just won't accept the answer. "Vilifying systems that you don't happen to like isn't going to help us build a better Wikipedia." That's certainly true, and it's among the many reason why you need to drop your 6+ year campaign against LQ. The LQ consensus is certainly not vilifying any quotation systems. Pointing out their objectively observable flaws, principally two related forms of misquotation in both the TQ/AQ system and the variants of the BQ systems, is not "vilifying". Insistently denying all evidence to the contrary to paint LQ as a geek cabalist imposition of a Briticism to censor Americans, as you've been doing non-stop since 2009 or so, would certainly seem to qualify. More importantly, your repeated uncivil accusations that everyone who doesn't agree with you is a "bully" [53] are mass vilifications of other editors. You are in no position whatsoever to lecture anyone on politeness, which you seem to think means unctuousness, judging from how you craft most of your uncivil comments. Implying that those who don't agree with you are liars or assholes without quite calling them that to their faces is not somehow civil. It's almost hilarious that you replaced a "things can get vicious" comment about the debate itself, with a direct accusation of "bullying" by Tony1 (to match the same accusation you threw at me on this page earlier); it's the very "viciousness" you alluded to! Re: "How is that logically impossible?" – That's not what I said was logically impossible, and that revisionism isn't responsive. I'll try another tactic: I challenge you to demonstrate that the systemic misquotation flaw I pointed out in LQ is not systemic. Hint: you can't, because it's an objective fact that it's systemic, for the same reason the similar flaw in BQ is, neither of which are shared by LQ (this systemic misquotation was why LQ was developed to begin with, and it wasn't in computer science, a discipline that then was about vacuum tubes and punch cards, not written code). When one accepts only the sources and reasoning one likes, and ignores all other evidence and logic, that's the very definition of unreasonable. When no matter how many times things are explained to someone, they not only don't understand any explanation but don't even understand that is is one, it's time for them to move on, because their continued argumentation about something they just don't really get is a source of endlessly renewable disruption.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  21:19, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I am not trying to dictate how you use English and I don't know why you think I am. I actually agree that people shouldn't dictate this to each other. That's why I think imposing WP:LQ on Wikipedia is wrong and why I've asked you to stop telling me to stop using the terminology that I use (in this case "British" and "American").

The fact that American style is easier to learn is relevant because more than one Wikieditor has come to this page and said that they found WP:LQ confusing. One solution to "this system is confusing" is to use the easier system. SmC, if you don't think WP:LQ is confusing enough to replace, you're entitled to your opinion. But it looks like you think your opinion is an objective fact and that anyone who doesn't agree with you is just making trouble. That's not the case.

I am not vilifying British punctuation. I am against Wikipedia's policy of requiring it in all articles, even those in which it is not correct.

But it's not just "one particular person," is it, SmC? This rule keeps getting challenged by people who don't know me or each other.

What evidence to the contrary? What do you mean? This is not a rhetorical question.

I do not think that everyone who doesn't agree with me is a bully. I think that when you guys circle around the new guy and tell him he's wrong even though the sources say he's right, that you guys are bullying that new guy. You've read Garagepunk's comments on my talk page. He said you guys made him feel like he was crazy.

SmC, which of my comments do you think is uncivil? Please cited the exact words that offended you rather than paraphrasing. I will go to as much effort to avoid offending you as I want you to go to.

How would I prove that the stray comma, which did not alter the meaning of Sam Adam's quotation, is not a systemic problem? Because I've been at this for years and this is the first time I've seen any error of any kind in any way associated with American punctuation. Would you like to prove that the errors that I found in Statue of Liberty are not systemic? Or maybe you'd say that it's on the opponent of WP:LQ to prove that it is?

When one accepts only the sources and reasoning one likes, and ignores all other evidence and logic, that's the very definition of unreasonable Yes, I agree that this is a problem, but you haven't shown any sources yet, and we've both presented evidence in favor of our positions. I've shown you sources, evidence and logic, but I accept that you don't find the sources and logic that I've presented to you convincing, but I try to respect that you have a right to your opinion even if I don't agree with it. But you must stop insisting that I don't have a right to share the conclusions drawn by reliable sources.

You keep saying that I'm ignoring evidence. I keep saying "What evidence? What do you mean?" Do you mean the error you found in Sam Adams? I don't think one error is a big enough reason to ban an entire system. If it were, we'd have to ban British style too because of the errors in Statue of Liberty. If you post a source that you believe supports either "BQ and LQ are the same" or "Here's why Chicago, Oxford and the AMA are wrong on this point" or "American style isn't really American," I promise to read carefully. But until then, please don't claim that I'm ignoring evidence. You haven't shown any yet. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:59, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

The important part: There's nothing "confusing" about "do not change punctuation in quoted material", which is the entire and only rule of LQ. It's the simplest quotation punctuation system ever devised (and it's neither of the British ones, both of which – Oxford, and journalism, which has multiple variants – permit alterations that suit the sense of the sentence doing the quoting). You keep demanding sources, and you keep being shown exactly where they are: Every style guide that defines logical quotation, and every style guide that define a British quotation style. This is not an article, and no one is obligated to format a {{Cite book}} for each of them for you (I've actually did that before only a few months ago, and you continue to pretend these sources have never been presented. I find that personally offensive, because it indicates you consider WP:WINNING at your game to force my compliance with your petty and pointless demands to be worth more than my own time and productivity.) Since everyone's surely bored with this now and doesn't want to see any more of it, all of the rest of the above I'll refute in detail at User talk:SMcCandlish/SMcC responses to DF24#2015-12-30; it'll be easier for me to compile them there so I can simply link to or copy-paste refutations I've already written the next time you recycle the same bogus arguments. I should have thought of this years ago.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  18:32, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I understand that you think it's simple and easy, but we've had people coming here asking for help because they found it confusing.

You say "every single style guide that does X," but I still don't know which ones you mean. It would help if you gave a name. For example, the Journal of Irish and Scottish Studies, cited above, defines "logical quotation" as placement according to sense. Other sources, cited right next to it, describe the same thing but call it "British." From this, I infer that they're two names for the same thing. Now you do that: Give a title and say why you think it agrees with you.

As for your posts a few months back, those sources didn't actually support your position. They were either neutral on the issue or opposed it. I used CMoS 16 as an example earlier in this discussion.

SMC, per Wikipedia's rules, you are not generally required to give a source for the positions that you hold on talk pages; that is correct. However, if you want to keep complaining that I haven't changed my mind or to keep asserting that there are sources that contradict the ones I've shown you, then citing a source would be the right thing to do. Or you could accept that I don't agree with you.

I'm not going to your talk page, SmC. That is not the place for this. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:52, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

A few editors now seem to find it confusing because you introduced changes without consensus that made it confusing.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  17:54, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:32, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

FYI, Darkfrog24 is encouraging newish editor Garagepunk66 who opened this thread (with a reasonable question) and who doesn't yet know how RfC process works, to open an RfC on the matter [54] [55]. After DF24 just recently complained about how the last RfC was constructed. I'd welcome either a moratorium or another RfC on it, since the result of the latter is predictable, and either one will put a lid on this biased and counterfactual anti-LQ campaigning for a little while. But this recruitment approach makes about as much sense as asking a freshman Congressman with no legal experience to be the new chair of House Judiciary Committee, and doing so on the basis that the last one didn't bring enough experience and expertise to the job. Wouldn't it make more sense to draft an RfC here, to make sure everyone agrees it would be valid? A frequent problem with MoS-related RfCs, like the last round of them at Village Pump about gender identity, is they get written by activists with a viewpoint to push, and/or simply miss the boat on a lot of central questions.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  21:19, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Please, everyone do look at what I actually said to Garagepunk about what happens during WP:LQ RfCs around here.

If we do have an RfC on WP:LQ, I would recommend that we get a neutral third party to write it. From my perspective, the wording of the last one made it almost unrecognizable, and I know a lot of you guys didn't like the wording that I proposed. (SmC, for the last RfC, we actually did have a dedicated thread to discuss the wording ahead of time.[56] The RfC poster jumped the line and acted alone. So it's not a bad idea, but we already tried it and it didn't work. I've also seen people jump the line in other discussions. One thing that was good about our gender identity RfCs is that though a lot of the drafters disagreed, we were all willing to work with each other honestly and treat each other fairly.)

As for moratorium, remember, it's not as if the same person keeps challenging WP:LQ. It's continually challenged by different people. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:37, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Except it's not. About once or twice a year someone raises a question about it, or suggests that they'd like something different. After it's explained to them, they get it, and that's the end of it. Except you try to turn virtually every mention of our quotation style into another platform from which to re-launch your campaign against it, always predicated on making counterfactual claims that LQ is British and thus some kind of anti-American slight. One editor is the source of virtually all of the re-cycling noise about LQ. That's not controversy, that's just tendentiousness. If LQ were actually controversial, numerous editors who are not MoS regulars would be launching frequent RfCs about it. As for the last RfC, the process was working and could be tried again (if anyone actually thought we need yet another RfC on this; it is not necessary to "test" the consensus of everything on WP by re-re-re-RfCing it all the time). Your objection to someone "jumping the line" and posting their version rings rather hollow in the light of your trying to recruit some newly arrived editor who agrees with you, but who doesn't even know where WP:RFC is, to launch an RfC out of the blue for you. Anyway, yes, it would probably be useful for a neutral third party to write most RfCs, but I'm skeptical that most editors have no opinion at all. Part of the WP:AGF regime under which WP operates is that we trust people to write RfCs fairly, and when they don't we trust the intelligence of the editorship to detect the bias and compensate for it. We have to trust that our fellow MoS regulars can collectively craft an RfC that doesn't misrepresent things, otherwise there's no point in this being a collaborative project; the whole point of talk pages and the RfCs and such on them is consensus formation. The only problem is that drafting such an RfC will probably simply restart the same debate we've been having, and it's time and effort we can't get back. There is already a consensus. Like most consensuses on WP, a few people question it once in a while. Unlike with most of our consensuses, this one is subject to one editor's singleminded campaign to undo it. That's a problem, and the problem isn't in the guideline or the process.

When it comes to the things style guides disagree on, and rules for which millions and millions of sentences in our content (far more than quotation mark punctuation), the number one would obviously be when and when not to use commas. Yet issues rarely rise to dispute level about it, and tempers rarely rise with it. The difference, of course, is that this "controversy" about LQ is manufactured, just a bunch of activism. Despite more stylistic disagreement over comma usage, there aren't any "comma pundits" around, so there's virtually no time-wasting debate about them. But we sure have one quotation marks pundit, on the same soapbox for years, preaching the same Holy Truth like a tape loop.

The fact that this nationalism-tinged thrust is pointless (not just factually wrong) is pretty obvious. If a Canadian style guide's next edition says to use French guillemets for quotations instead of quotation marks, and Canadian publishing enthusiastically adopts it, MoS and WP would flatly reject any push to use them in WP articles written in Canadian English. The notion that ENGVAR applies to everything with any hint of a national tie is wrong, but so is the notion that it always applies to everything with a very strong national tie, overriding all other concerns. Back to LQ, there are very few concerns on WP that override accuracy, and that's why LQ has never been seriously challenged here and probably never will be. ENGVAR applies when the particular little style choice in question is basically irrelevant other than that one will agree better with a "national" style (not that there really is any such thing, though the publishers of nationalist style books make a fat bankroll off the notion). If you're really this hell bent on always writing in TQ, then just do it per WP:IAR and other editors will clean it up later. MoS is just a guideline after all.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  03:56, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

No, people show up, challenge it, then get bullied to go away. And a lot of the time, I've gone to their talk pages and warned them that they can expect more of the same if they continue. You read my conversation with Garbagepunk. Did he say "Oh, now I think Izno and the others are right"? No. He said "If it's that much trouble, I don't want to do it right now."

SmC, I did trust my fellow editors to work together and craft an RfC fairly, but it didn't work out that way. Even after someone jumped the line the first time, I tried it again (not at WT:MoS, somewhere else), and it happened again.

Response to "fat bankroll": So the reason you don't like the sources I've cited is because you think that they're making things up or exaggerating for money? Any sources or is this your own conclusion?

Those are the three points that seem newest and most relevant, I could write a point-by-point response to the rest of your post, but we've both been through it before. You are very frustrated that I have not changed my mind about Wikipedia's rule requiring British punctuation, either in my belief that it is British or in my belief that it is not right to require it in all articles. I will tell you how to change my mind: Provide sources that say either "It's not American and British," "It's British but here are lots of large-magnitude, non-imaginary, non-hypothetical reasons to use it in general-audience writing anyway" and are BETTER than the sources that I have provided that say "It is American/British" and "Don't do this in general-audience writing." If you either can't provide those sources or just don't want to, then please—you are ranting at this point—please don't rant about me any more. Complaining won't change my mind. Repeating your opinion over and over won't change my mind. But if you developed that opinion by reading style guides or sociolinguistic studies or absorbing some other kind of reliable source, then why not show them to me or tell me what they were? At the absolute least, then I'll know more about where you're coming from. If the fact that I personally don't agree with you bothers you this much, then take some of your energy and put it to more solid use. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:38, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Also moved to User talk:SMcCandlish/SMcC responses to DF24#2015-12-30; no one wants to read more of this back-and-forth here.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  18:42, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Move to close current discussion of WP:LQ

I think we should all agree that LQ strikes some editors as odd, and move on. 200 KB of bickering is enough. Dicklyon (talk) 05:07, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

In fairness, some of those KB came from both SMcCandlish and myself digging for evidence; that took some work.

For closure text, I feel that some acknowledgement that there are reliable sources that support the original poster's position would be appropriate. Darkfrog24 (talk) 05:19, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I think we all can acknowledge his "strikes me as odd" position, and that some sources characterize LQ as un-American, and we're not near a consensus on anything else, right? Dicklyon (talk) 05:48, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

The OP's position (and mine) was not "this is odd." It was "this contradicts standard American English." I'd say it's less "some," and more "overwhelming majority," but it's not necessary for the closure text to say that. "Un-American" has some connotations that don't apply here, so I wouldn't use that exact word. How do you feel about this? "A Wikieditor suggested changing WP:LQ on the grounds that it is at odds with standard American English practices. Reliable sources were offered that concurred with this claim. No consensus to change WP:LQ formed." Just the facts. Darkfrog24 (talk) 05:56, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

So, none of SMcCandlish's facts need be mentioned? Seems fair. And where is this text from OP that you're quoting? Didn't he say "strikes me as odd", actually? Dicklyon (talk) 06:03, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

The first post in this thread. If you want to say "strikes as odd" and "runs counter to American English," that's one thing, but if you say "odd" alone, then it looks like that was the only reason for the objection, and that would be misleading. Kind of like we don't need to say "the overwhelming majority of sources say X," but if we say "some sources say X," that implies it's a minority, which isn't true. "Sources that say X were offered" keeps it neutral.

Okay, how about "two editors offered statistics and raw data regarding how much this rule is and isn't followed in the article space; they also each cited errors that they attribute to the two prevailing punctuation styles." And if this isn't what you meant, then how would you say it? Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:25, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

You're misquoting. What the OP actually said was "strikes me as odd (as an American), and runs contrary to regular norms of usage, at least in American English." What's regular/normal in American English doesn't translate to a "standard" that is "contradicted". There is no standard for American English. But who cares? Lots and lots of things in MoS run counter to what is typical in US and North American English, and lots and lot of them run counter to what is typical in UK and Commonwealth English. ENGVAR only applies when there are no good reasons to prefer one over the other (e.g. how to spell "colo[u]r", whether it's "petrol" or "gasoline"). Any time is a good reason, we pick one over the other (thus "aluminium" not "aluminum"), and there are multiple good reasons for LQ.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  16:43, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

SmC, it is not true that there is no standard for American English. When almost every style guide (all the mainstream ones) say the same thing, we can consider that a standard for such purposes as writing an encyclopedia.

I don't see why you consider the national divide on spelling relevant but not the national divide on punctuation. "Centre" is British and "center" is American. We use both here, as appropriate. There are no good reasons to ban American style and several to prefer it (accepted in both British and American English, required in American English, demonstrably easier to learn and use, more favorable to team editing, etc.).

What else in the MoS directly contradicts/runs counter/whatever you want to call it to American English (or British)? Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:18, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

• I haven't read the above, but it's clear from the amount of discussion over the years that LQ doesn't have consensus, not to mention that it's widely ignored because most editors are American, and lots that aren't don't use it either. In fact, very few know how to use it correctly. It would be better to acknowledge that, rather than to continue like this year after year. Why not set up WP:PUNCVAR or acknowledge that LQ is covered by WP:STYLEVAR? Problem solved. SarahSV ^(talk) 06:12, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
  • You had me at "I haven't read the above". 'Nuf said. Dicklyon (talk) 06:19, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

• This is the kind of response that people expect when they post here, which is why they don't, so it reaches the stage where it's not clear that the MoS would have consensus as a guideline if push came to shove. It would be wonderful if that could change for 2016, and if some of these perennial issues could just be resolved.

It won't change your life one bit if people use the punctuation style of their choice. Anyone wanting to use LQ in articles they create could still do it; if we word the thing like CITEVAR (first major contributor), it would cause very little change. But it would make things easier for people who dislike it, would stop this debate, and would stop articles from being so poorly punctuated by people trying to use a style that is actually quite hard to get right. SarahSV ^(talk) 06:30, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

But you're asserting things that are disputed in the arguments above. And just because a provision of the MOS is widely ignored (as most are) doesn't mean it's a problem. That's what wikignomes are for. Have you noticed that almost all new article titles use capitalization even when inappropriate? Big deal; we just fix it. Dicklyon (talk) 07:24, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. Compliance with this an various other rules is low because the actual average editor is a non-editor, as far as "the Wikipedia lifestyle" goes, but is a drive-by who inserts or tweaks something; these people have never heard of MoS, and probably would never look at it. Even among regular editors, a large proportion of them have never read it, and just write as they see fit. This is desirable. It's why WP grew so fast and so well. It has never, ever been the intent that MoS should have to be read ahead of, or any way constrain, any editor here to add content. It exists primary for post-facto cleanup, and for editors who care to do it right the first time. It's natural and expected that off-the-bat compliance by any editor will be near zero.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  16:43, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Break in the discussion of WP:LQ

I'd prefer an ENGVAR-based rule but I could also support a first-major-contributor rule. It would be better than what we've got now.

Slim, I wish it were true that people could use whatever style they want, but I got brought up on AN/I once for using American punctuation. I was going through articles that used a mixture of both and changing them to one or the other (and yes I changed some to all-British too). No we're not allowed to do what we want regardless of the MoS, at least not in my experience.

It looks like not everyone feels like they've had their say, so maybe hold off on closing for now. How about at least a few days after the most recent new person shows up? Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:25, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Darkfrog24, a suggestion: open a page about this in your user space, and invite people there who would be willing to see this change. Just a small number, or else it will become unmanageable. Work with them to create an alternative text for MoS, and to formulate a clear and simple RfC question on the issue. That will take a few weeks or months, but it might lead to something constructive. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:25, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Heh, I thought you were suggesting that SmC and I both take a break. (I'm game if you are, McCandlish.)

That's a thought. I'd certainly want to invite Peter C if I were to do something like that. I still haven't heard what his version of Wikipedia's quotation rules would be. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:54, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Sure, on holding off. A FMC rule? We need way fewer of those. Mostly all they do is lead to WP:OWN problems. Why on earth would we ever want a rule that amounts to "whether the quotations will be accurate or not is up to the FMC"? That's the least useful proposition I've ever heard on WP, as far as I can recall. PS: It's never been okay to change existing text to violate guidelines. It's always been okay to just write text, whether it complied with guidelines or not. This distinction was made very clear to you in your ANI.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  16:43, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Right. We don't get to use whichever style we want or disregard the MoS even when it's wrong. British style is required and American style is banned. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:21, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Since MOS just indicates what WP consensus is with regard to how to write WP, and is not an article asserting facts about the external world, the only way for MOS to be wrong are a) someone inserted an assertion of external fact into it (which we generally should not do here) and it was false, or b) someone edited MOS to say something that doesn't have consensus, like "sentences should end with commas". Since any two style guides disagree on numerous things, and there are virtually no things on which all style guides are unanimous, it is literally impossible for MOS to agree with all of them on much of anything, or on everything with any of them. MOS doesn't "ban" anything. It recommends logical quotation (change-no-punctuation}, neither typesetters/"American" quotation (move-punctuation-inside-always) nor British (keep-punctuaton-outside-with-exceptions).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  19:16, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I understand that you think that the MoS doesn't have to be sourced, that it is it okay for it to contain arbitrary things, and that you don't think it can be wrong. I disagree. If the MoS told us to put commas in the mid,dle of words, it would be wrong. Telling us to use left-out commas in American English articles is wrong.

This is not a case of two style guides disagreeing. Almost all of them do agree.

If it's against the rules and forbidden, it's banned. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:25, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Slim: If the amount of discussion over the years is mostly due to the tendentiousness of a single party, that doesn't imply a lack of consensus at all, especially when they do not follow the reasoning of much of anything said to them, and engage in enormous amounts of OR to wish away sources that contradict them, right before our very eyes, then pretend that no sources were offered (often all on the same day, in the same thread). If this were an article content dispute, said editor would have been topic-banned years ago. Even by Darkfrog24's own accounting, someone new questioning logical quotation is more or less an annual event, so the rate of conflict about it (excluding that engendered by the same editor over and over again) is much lower than for many other MoS topics (dashes, date formatting, IEC prefixes, words-to-watch, gender identity, etc., etc.).

Since you didn't actually read the discussion, here's a precise of the key stats (without getting into any of the "why LQ isn't British" material): The older evidence (provided by DF24) showing a 63–73% [depending on whose math your calculator agrees with] compliance rate with logical quotation in FAs, with most of the bulk of the remainder being mixed (i.e., compliant LQ being palimpsested later by typesetters' quotation usually, or inadequate gnoming of extant TQ occasionally). The cases of consistent use of TQ was ridiculously small (8% max). My own more recent data excluded British-English FAs, and only looked at those written in AmEng (or CanEng indistinguishable from AmEng), to see what American editors (those most likely to not know about or to ignore LQ) were doing, in 2015. I.e., I intentionally skewed it in favor of TQ. Results, if you treat even a single instance of TQ added to an LQ article as mixed: 59% perfect LQ compliance, 33% mixed, 1.6% TQ. If you count articles with only 1–3 instances of TQ in an otherwise all-LQ article as being on the LQ side, it's 89% LQ, 3% wildly mixed, and 1.6% TQ. If, for fun, you give 2-or-more-TQs articles to TQ no matter how much LQ they have, you still only get 16% TQ. This is quite remarkable. It clearly proves that Americans have no difficulty adapting to LQ, and strongly suggests that even new editors are apt to figure out we write in LQ simply from looking at what's already in the article. Otherwise we should be seeing something like at least 50% corruption of AmEng FAs by having at least one bit of TQ in them. This LQ compliance rate is much higher than compliance with a large number of other MoS rules. (The obvious reason is that LQ is the de facto style of the Internet at this point, and everyone's already familiar with it, even when it's not their native preference.)

The most actually conflicting style advice between different style guides is how to use commas. But few hot disputes erupt here about that. Can you guess why? It's because there's not a dedicated activist trying to change MoS about it. When people come to MoS to inquire or even object about LQ (or whatever else is in MoS), they get the reasons why it's there, and usually drop it. Sometimes they're onto something, and consensus changes. If it hasn't changed in 6.5 years of demanding the change, the change has no consensus and isn't ever likely to have it. We call these WP:PERENNIAL.

If you really think that LQ doesn't have consensus, then RfC it (again). It's not like all of the nonsensical arguments against LQ haven't been debunked already, and the valid ones are outweighed by the stronger valid ones for keeping LQ. Every time this comes up, the consensus remains the same, because [almost] everyone ultimately gets the reasoning for it, and is willing to use it even if it's not their everyday style off-Wiki. The OP that DF24 tries to paint as some traumatized victim said this to me earlier today: 'I may have had question about the present guidelines, but otherwise, I can live happily within the framework of what has been agreed upon. I can sometimes play "devil's advocate", but at the end of the day, I'll try my best to adhere to Wikipedia's standards and policies.' It's common and normal for new editors to come here and "give it a go" to change something unfamiliar to them and then move on, just as it's even more normal for them to never show up here at all, and to write they way they feel like, leaving it to others to tidy up the nit-picks.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  16:43, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

SmC, this rule has nothing to do with accuracy. We've seen that both the current rule and American can cause misplaced commas that did not in change the meaning of the sentence in either of the two cited articles. Neither one has been shown to perform better than the other with respect to accuracy. You've said that you don't like what you call "proof by assertion." Please take your own advice and stop repeating your opinion over and over.

Again, if it were me bringing up the issue every time, you might be able to claim "tenditiousness of a single party," but it isn't. When someone else brings it up, I support them, primarily by posting sources, but right now I guess you could say I double as a human shield.

SmC, do not claim that I am pretending that no sources were offered or anything else. I'm saying that I don't know what sources you're talking about. What source? What style guide says "This isn't really American/British" or "it is but do it anyway"? If I missed it, just re-state its title or re-post its link. I've done as much for you. That's WP:AGF. When someone says "I didn't see that source," say "I mean this one right here." Early in this discussion, Peter C didn't see where Oxford referred to the practices as American and British, so I pointed out the exact text to him. I did not assume that Peter was pretending that I hadn't really posted the source; I took him at his word and treated the problem like the easy fix that it was. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:18, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Both the sources on LQ and the consensus here both say it has everything to do with accuracy, so you're basically just talking to the wall. And playing WP:IDHT against; we just went over this a couple of hours ago: The current rule does not cause misplaced commas; the Oxford and and the British journalism variant versions of actual BQ, and the American/TQ rule do. Neither form of actual BQ nor AQ/TQ performs more accurately than LQ, which is entirely accurate by definition (zero changes are made, thus 100% accuracy, absent user error like a typo). Technically, both forms of BQ outperform AQ/TQ in this regard, because they less frequently result in changes (the Oxford variant is a little better in this regard than some of the journalistic ones). Just because you don't start the thread every time doesn't mean you're not being tendentious. The very post I'm responding to demonstrates sheer, undeniable tendentiousness in multiple ways. Sources: Already answered. See the quotation sections of style guides that define LQ, and style guides that define British quotation styles. Note how the differ. The end. The Guardian article mentioned repeatedly today already summarized the distinction, but you just chose not to see it. If you've somehow forgotten that the Oxford style manual is named the Oxford Style Manual (among other titles), etc., see list at Style guide (it only lists about 1/10 of the ones it should, but it's a start; sadly, I rewrote it over the course of about 10 hours a few months ago, and then lost it in a power failure; I've now learned to periodically copy such work into an external text editor!) See WP:JUSTSEARCH; no other editors are obligated to fish up source details in talk page discussions to satisfy another editor's unwillingness to go look for themselves. We need no external style guide telling WP to "do it anyway". WP makes up its own mind how it writes itself, and MOS is not an article. I think that's concise enough to bother posting here.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  19:16, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

It's not that I didn't hear you, SmC. You've made it clear that you believe that British style is more accurate than American. It's that I don't agree with you. You showed an error that you attribute to American style. I showed a case of errors that can be attributed to WP:LQ. They've both got well over a hundred years of use under their belts. Both systems work well enough to be used in an online encyclopedia.

A few months ago, you posted some sources that defined the British style using the names "logical" and "British," and while some did say "placement by original position" and others "placement by grammatical sense," they did not do so along British/logical lines. For example, you cited Chicago MoS 16, which used the name "British" for both position and sense. Among sources that I cited, the Journal of Irish and Scottish studies said that placement by sense was named "logical." Oxford University Press said that placement by sense was named "British," and so on. The pattern that you suggested did not emerge. (You also cited sources that did not give either name for the practice, like the Linguistic Society of America. Sources that don't name the practice do not suggest that they are either the same or different; they're neutral.) This is why I do not find your statement "Logical is placement by original position and British is placement by grammatical sense" to be borne out in sources.

I'm going to AGF and assume that you think you have answered my request for sources. You actually haven't. Here's what I mean by that: By asking for sources, I don't want you to say "There's a source that agrees with me." I mean something more like "The X University Manual of Style agrees with me and here's what it says," like I did earlier with JSIS and Chicago 14. If you did post such sources and I missed it, please post a link to them again.

You are correct that Wikipedia's rules don't generally require editors to support everything that they say on talk pages with sources, and if you don't want to provide sources to prove that you're right, you don't have to. But then stop complaining about how I don't think you're right. Even without proof, other Wikieditors and myself must all respect your right to have an opinion of your own, drawn through your own reasoning process, but no one has to treat that opinion as if it were fact. Look at my interaction with Peter C. He said "I don't think it's American (here's why)." I said "But I do (here's why)." Then we moved on. You are acting as if I don't have the right to my opinion, even though I have shown that it matches what is said in reliable sources. Chicago MoS 14 style blog of the American Medical Association American Psychological Association Gregg Reference Manual MLA blog that quotes a letter from CMoS staff (more upon request) Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:58, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Example of the problem with WP:LQ

The key point is that isn't reasonable to force LQ on editors who don't know how to use it. Doing that leaves pages inconsistent. Internal/typsetteers' punctuation is much easier to use, because:

1. you almost always do the same thing;
2. it's easy for new editors to work out what the rules are by looking at other examples, which isn't the case with LQ;
3. you don't need access to the original source, a crucial point on Wikipedia.

Example with LQ

The following is from the Independent and shows the difficulty of trying to extract a rule from looking at LQ if you're not familiar with it. The article is an interview with someone who is quoting the police. [57] (It's about a homophobic attack; apologies for pressing it into service, but the punctuation jumped out at me and I kept the example.)

Original passage

"But they said, 'If you can't identify them there's not a lot we can do'. I don't even know if the statement I gave was coherent because I was on morphine." It would be weeks before Stewart spoke to the police again. "I phoned every day, I could never get through." He was offered an LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transexual) liaison officer. "But I didn't want to be pigeon-holed, I wanted to be treated as the victim of a violent crime who happens to be gay, not palmed off. They didn't explain how that would affect how the case went, or what constitutes a hate crime – what that really means. I felt like they were saying, 'Do you want to play the gay card?'." Stewart was left unclear how the crime had been categorised. The Metropolitan Police confirm to me it was eventually recorded as a homophobic hate crime, but that no one was arrested or charged. They confirm, too, that there was a period of approximately three weeks in which Stewart was unable to reach the officers involved "partly due to annual leave". They add: "The Metropolitan Police Service is committed to tackling all forms of hate crime". The attackers remain at large.

1. "But they said, 'If you can't identify them there's not a lot we can do'. I don't even know if the statement I gave was coherent because I was on morphine."

   – one complete sentence (within a sentence), with outside punctuation; one complete sentence with inside punctuation.

2. "I phoned every day, I could never get through." He was offered an LGBT ... liaison officer. "But I didn't want to be pigeon-holed ... I felt like they were saying, 'Do you want to play the gay card?'."

   – one complete sentence with inside punctuation; a second complete sentence (within a sentence) ending with a question mark, single quotation mark, period, double quotation marks.

3.  ... [He] was unable to reach the officers involved "partly due to annual leave". They add: "The Metropolitan Police Service is committed to tackling all forms of hate crime".

   – one partial sentence with outside punctuation; one complete sentence (within a sentence) with outside punctuation.

Same example with internal punctuation

Here's how it would look with inside/typesetters' punctuation. All the punctuation is placed inside the quotation marks. There is no need to see the original source, or work out what is and isn't a complete sentence, or check a style guide. It is very easy for new editors to copy.

1. "But they said, 'If you can't identify them there's not a lot we can do.' I don't even know if the statement I gave was coherent because I was on morphine."
2. "I phoned every day, I could never get through." He was offered an LGBT ... liaison officer. "But I didn't want to be pigeon-holed ... I felt like they were saying, 'Do you want to play the gay card?'"
3. ... [He] was unable to reach the officers involved "partly due to annual leave." They add: "The Metropolitan Police Service is committed to tackling all forms of hate crime."

SarahSV ^(talk) 04:30, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

It seems to me that the MOS is mostly about what's best for the reader, as opposed to what's easiest for editors – use good style and typography to convey clear meaning and easy reading, as opposed to just good looks. LQ falls into that category. Dicklyon (talk) 06:30, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree, but American and British/L style are equally good at doing that. Neither outperforms the other with respect to flow or reading comprehension. The best thing for the reader is for the punctuation to be consistent and correct. American punctuation should be used in articles written in American English. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:27, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Most readers aren't going to notice LQ, and it seems absurd to argue that all academic writing in North America, and fiction writing in the UK, fails to convey clear meaning because punctuation is placed before quotation marks. This is an issue for editors, not readers, just like which date format to use, which citation system, or whether to write BE or BCE, color or colour. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:23, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

True, most readers don't notice much that's subtle. But if they know that WP uses LQ, then they see less ambiguity about what's part of the quote. Even if they don't know it's LQ, in many cases it will be clear when punctuation is or is not part of the quote. On the other hand, in the old conventional typographical style, the ambiguity is inherent. Readers can't be helped by that. Dicklyon (talk) 22:30, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Arguing about the benefits of either style misses the point, because both sides can cite benefits.

The key issues for the English Wikipedia are: (1) that LQ can't easily be copied by other editors, particularly new editors, and very few editors know how to apply it correctly; and (2) that most editors here are North American, and North American publications (and some British ones) use typesetters' style. Therefore, this should be an ENGVAR or STYLEVAR (first major contributor) issue, so that a tricky minority style is no longer imposed on the majority. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:41, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Dicklyon, if the reader knows all the ins and outs of British/L style, and can trust that Wikipedia is using it consistently (which they can't), then that might happen; not going to fight you on it right now. But apply the same standard: If the reader knows the ins and outs of American style, then there is no ambiguity. Both the errors that SmC and I cited above were cases of user error, not system error. If someone knows how to use either style properly, then it works. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:39, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

The reason I posted this example was to show the complexity of LQ, and to show that the Independent's copy editor does not do what the MoS advises. The Independent wrote:

“ They add: "The Metropolitan Police Service is committed to tackling all forms of hate crime". ”

But the MoS advises: "If the quotation is a full sentence and it coincides with the end of the sentence containing it, place terminal punctuation inside the closing quotation mark." It gives as an example:

“ Marlin said: "I need to find Nemo." ”

We see this repeatedly, whether it's publications disagreeing with the MoS on LQ, or editors punctuating inconsistently when they try to add it. It's time to let people choose. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:35, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Is there any kind of style mistake that we don't see repeatedly? I don't think so. In this case, either they made a mistake, or they're following some different style, or they really did mean to signal that that quoted sentence did not end there. Dicklyon (talk) 20:50, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

But I see this a lot when people struggle to use LQ. Did the Independent make a mistake, or is this how LQ is applied by copy editors for British newspapers? Clearly the quoted sentence did end there. And this ...

“ I felt like they were saying, 'Do you want to play the gay card?'." ”

... looks peculiar. We shouldn't be forcing editors here to figure this out. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:08, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Break

(edit conflict) It's never time to let people choose to falsify quotations, no matter how much they may prefer a more imprecise writing style in their day-to-day usage. What various journalism publishers do is not our concern, per WP:NOT#NEWSPAPER. The Independent doesn't use LQ, it's uses one of many variants of British journalism quotation, which (collectively oversimplified as "a style") is less precise that British academic quotation (Oxford), which is still not LQ. The Guardian article cited already many times here spells this out quite succinctly. For more depth, simply read the style guides in question. LQ does not permit insertion of extraneous punctuation (including removal of a dot and replacement with a comma). Oxford style permits some, when it suits the sense of the quoting sentence. British journalism styles permit even more such alterations. I challenge everyone to find one single British style manual ever saying to never modify quotation punctuation, without it also saying that's it's logical quotation (e.g. the style guide of the Journal of Irish and Scottish Studies, also shared almost word-for-word by various other humanities journals, as far as away as Australia).

em}} no matter how many American style guides want to lump them together and blur the distinction between them to increase their odds of convincing their readers that TQ is "American" and something to wave a flag about (and keep buying their patriotic style guides while they're at it). The very fact that the British style guides that define British academic and British journalism styles define a set of quotation styles that are almost identical to each other but which uniformly depart on this point from LQ, as defined in the guides that define that, proves conclusively that BQ and LQ are distinct, and in one particular way.

There are at least 6 major punctuation styles in English – 1) 'Foo,' always. 2) "Foo," always. 3) 'Foo', by default, but change it to suit sense of quoting sentence. 4) "Foo", by default, but change it to suit sense of quoting sentence. 5) 'Foo', always, unless comma was in the original. 6) "Foo", always, unless comma was in the original. WP chose the one that produces the fewest errors and and the fewest readability problems for the most editors (#6). The most common style in fiction and American journalism and book publishing is #2. The British academic one is #3. British journalism is #4 most often, though also #3 frequently. Both #5 and #6 are logical quotation; #5 is used for specific things in various disciplines (e.g. non-interlinear glosses in linguistics), and in British/Commonwealth journals that use logical quotation but prefer single-then-double order; #6 is used by logical quotation publication that prefer double-then-single, as WP does. No one seems to use #1 at all, other than Commonwealth fiction publishers, and more and more of them prefer #2. The sole consequences of WP's choice are: A) Our articles have text that's more accurate and harder to misinterpret than it would be if we used any other style. B) Editors (mostly new ones) who don't read MOS are apt to use whichever of the other styles they know best if they don't notice the LQ already used in the article. B) A tiny number of editors refuse to accept consensus on the matter.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  17:03, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

American English does not falsify quotations. You are only imagining that it does. In American English, the comma is part of the quotation process, not part of the quoted content.

I see that you are drawing distinctions between punctuation styles by combining comma placement with single-vs-double quotation marks. You're certainly allowed to do this for your own thought process, but that doesn't mean that these really are separate styles. Are there style guides that back up the claims you're making or are these conclusions that you've drawn on your own?

The assertion that British style makes the text more accurate is not true. Even if everything else about your statement were true, the reader would have to 1) know how British/L style works and 2) trust that Wikipedia was using it. Some of the readers might meet #1, but none meet #2.

Sources that describe placement by position position but don't call it by the name "logical"? You cited Chicago Manual of Style 16th edition yourself; it calls both by-position and by-grammatical-sense "British." The Punctuation Guide Oxford Dictionaries, though this last could be read either way. (If the question is whether British and logical are one system or two, then the fact that the Journal of Irish and Scottish Studies' refers to placement by grammatical sense as "logical quotation" is certainly relevant.) This is what I found from what I had available, but to prove your own positions, SmC, you should really be providing your own sources. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:33, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

LQ is not applied by copy editors at any British newspapers. No style guide anywhere would permit "I felt like they were saying, 'Do you want to play the gay card?'." or "I felt like they were saying, 'Do you want to play the gay card?.'" or "I felt like they were saying, 'Do you want to play the gay card'?.", so this is a red herring. No reader or editor confusion about such a thing has ever been or can be shown, because everyone already knows not to use double terminal punctuation. (The only exception is the "?!", nicknamed the "interrobang", which some style guides permit in informal writing, and which WP would never use except in direct quotation). The Independent didn't make a mistake, it just doesn't use LQ. It uses one of various forms of British journalism quotation style, which permits alterations to the quoted material. LQ never permits that.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  17:03, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

PS: I misunderstood your "mistake" question. In the original Independent material quoting someone saying "... I felt like they were saying, 'Do you want to play the gay card?'." Well, that's certainly aberrant, even for British style. It doesn't agree with what the Guardian Style Guide says, or The Telegraph's style guide, or The Economist's, or Oxfords, and it doesn't agree with any other British style guide I know of, so I don't know why they did that. The only plausible explanations I can think of are: A) The Independent has an internal style guide that differs from any public ones; but why would it have a rule this weird? B) They were quoting the subject's own written material (e.g. in an e-mail interview) and did not want to change the original's punctuation, which seems a bit unlikely. Some other British news publishers, especially The Guardian, are among the most loosey-goosey of the British organizations when it comes to quotation punctuation (i.e. among the furthest from LQ), and alter it at will to suit "the sense" of their own writing, but it's not clear if The Independent is on that side of the spectrum. Or C) it is in fact an editorial error, and it's not like that paper never has typos in it, in its print or online editions. But still, none of that has to do with LQ. If we needed to quote that whole thing verbatim, just do it and use [sic] or [punctuated as in the original]. It would probably be preferable to work around it, e.g. According to The Independent, he said of his interactions with the LGBT liaison officer that he "didn't want to be pigeon-holed" and that he felt as if they were asking him "Do you want to play the gay card?"  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  21:04, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

If LQ really is some third system and not part of British English and is not used by professional-quality publications, then we shouldn't be using it in on Wikipedia in any variety of English. You are making some pretty big assumptions about what "everyone" knows how to do. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:33, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Any editors who don't know not to double punctuate, and would write "Is it cold outside?." are beyond our help, probably not editing WP with any regularity, and aren't doing anything that pertains either way to logical quotation vs. any other form of quotation, so it's still a red herring. That's a lot of ifs you're making big assumptions about yourself, there. Let's get this straight: Because you've finally accepted that British journalists don't use LQ after years of denial on this point (yay! we are making progress!), you leap from that to "[LQ] is not used by professional-quality publications"? You want to walk us through that logic? In the mean time, your assumption that "professional-quality publications" don't use LQ will surely come as a big insulting surprise to the Council of Science Editors and all journals that follow their style recommendations (it's international, long published at Cambridge [not Mass.], presently in Chicago); in humanities, the Journal of Irish and Scottish Studies, Journal of the Royal Australian Historical Society, Journal of the Australian Catholic Historical Society, History of Education Review, and Health & History (just to pick some scholarly journals from my /Doc storage/style guides/humanities/history directory), and other journals that require it, including in fields one might not expect, like economics (e.g., Journal of Entrepreneurial Practice from Ryerson U.); Natural Language and Linguistic Theory which published Geoffrey Pullum's proof that TQ can result in serious misquotes, back in 1984; the University of Melbourne School of Historical and Philosophical Studies, which recommends it for all student writing; the University of Adelaide School of Humanities, which requires it at least in masters dissertations; MIT Press and Harper Collins, both publishers of The [New] Hacker's Dictionary, which spread the style throughout computer science and the Internet in 1983 (actually earlier, when it was online-only as The Jargon File); the Chicago Manual of Style which for almost as long has deferred to The New Hacker's Dictionary for "computer writing" (which WP is), including in the quotation marks section, and which also acknowledges LQ without naming it but describing it in three other sections; the mid-century editors of the American Bar Association Journal which was quite insistent on LQ, and only caved eventually because all the US courts settled on TQ; most of the tech press; much other professional technical writing; philosophy, linguistics, and textual analysis publishers; etc., etc. You just do not have a leg to stand on, and never have. You can go back 4 months, a year, 2 years, 5 years, and this conversation is exactly the same, other than there are more sources every time distinguishing LQ from BQ, and more sources every times showing LQ used in the academic and other reputable press.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  21:04, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Well of course it's clear there's not supposed to be a period right after a question mark, but when there's a quotation mark or other character in between it's a lot less obvious. We need to write for our audience and our audience has a wide range.

You have misread my post, SmC. Please note the word "if" at the beginning of that sentence. That is meant to indicate that I am not agreeing with you. Most of the sources I've found—and some of the ones you've found—say that Wikipedia's rule is British. (NOTE: Whenever I mistake your meaning, by even the slightest amount, you usually jump to accusations of deliberate misrepresentation. So maybe ease up on your own throttle a little. Read my posts as carefully as you want me to read yours.) But look at it this way. Say for the sake of argument that you're right and LQ and BQ are two different things. Why would we prefer an extreme minority system that hardly anyone uses to a mainstream system that one of the major forms of English uses? Why not just use standard English? And one additional point: Whether they're the same or not, neither one is allowed in American English.

These sources look impressive. I'd be interested in learning what they say. It would probably be relevant here. (Because you and I interpret things very differently, I would actually have to see what they say.)

Wikipedia is not computer writing. It is general-audience writing. Wikipedia's text is not meant to be parsed by computers dealing with literal strings. It is meant to be read by humans using nervous systems. Computers and humans differ considerably in the way they process images, including text. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:49, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

TL;DR version: This is such an aberrant case it's not representative of anything editors are ever likely to encounter. It's not even a quote of someone quoting the police anyway; it's a quote of someone expressing their internal-monologue feelings about what he thought the police were implying, and we can write around it easily. The punctuation of The Independent's nested quotation doesn't match any published style at all – not American/typesetters', not any publicly elucidated British style (not even The Guardians, which is probably the loosest), and not LQ.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  21:22, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

[I wrote this in response to SV's "Internal/typsetteers' punctuation is much easier to use, because:" list, but she refactored it down here where no one will see it, as if all these sections belong to her and her alone.]
In LQ:

1. You always do the same thing LQ, just a different one: use what's in the original without altering it (only dropping it if it doesn't apply to quoting sentence).
2. It is true of LQ, though. No quotation style is simpler than: 'Do not modify quoted material (other than with "..." and [brackets]).' Every style matter that is unfamiliar to a reader has a learning curve. LQ would not be the de facto standard of the Internet if it were difficult. University professors, including American ones, say that their students almost uniformly use it today and basically have to be punished into doing anything else. (Both the aforementioned Yagoda made this observation, and there are many other comments of this sort out there, e.g. [58]). The claim that something is too hard for people to use is disproven by widespread use.
3. WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NOR beg to differ. Of course you need access to the original source, or it can't be verified to be a quotation at all. If later editors have made a palimpsest of what's been quoted, look at earlier version of the page. If first quoting editor only used snippets and you want to use the full quote, you need to return to the original source anyway, no matter what quotation style is used. If in doubt, just put the terminal punctuation on the outside. In the example below, if we were not even sure it was originally a question, use He thought the police liaison was asking him if he "want[ed] to play the gay card".

Easy stuff.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  21:35, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

And logical, too. Dicklyon (talk) 21:40, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

• The argument now is that the British don't use LQ either, but some other system of their own making. So I wonder who really does use LQ as described above? I think we ought to start citing style guides in the MoS. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:02, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Actually "tuck periods and commas inside any adjacent quotation mark" is much simpler. As for how hard Wikipedia's current rule is, how about "hard enough for people to come here and say they found it confusing."

I agree with Slim on this one. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:49, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

SMcCandlish, you wrote above, describing LQ: "use what's in the original without altering it (only dropping it if it doesn't apply to quoting sentence)."

What if you're editing a poorly punctuated sentence and you don't have access to the original? SarahSV ^(talk) 05:54, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Already addressed that above, but your refactoring to prevent anyone from addressing your sections as sections makes that harder than necessary to follow. I'll re-answer in more detail here: One would go back to an earlier version of the page that didn't have the punctuation mess. If there isn't one, e.g. because the editor who originally inserted the quotation was sloppy, and you literally cannot access the original source, it probably makes the most sense to raise the issue on the talk page and ask someone with access to the source to verify and correct it. Per WP:V, all material must be verifiable with reliable sources. A source that no one can check isn't a valid source on Wikipedia, so if this cannot reasonably be done (even with interlibrary loan or whatever), then the material should simply be removed as unsourceable. [Aside: Interlibrary loan is very useful, and too few people here try it.] If the mess is so bad but the quote so salient that you feel it must be cleaned up in the interim and retained, the safe thing to do is to remove all questionable punctuation from the quoted material and move it outside, restructuring the WP sentence as needed. I even provided an example of this: He thought the police liaison was asking him if he "want[ed] to play the gay card". This is also an appropriate way to handle a case where the source is punctuated in a manner that is not recognized in any style guide at all, as was the case here, and where using [sic] or [punctuated as in original] isn't desirable. (Often we want to retain original punctuation that doesn't match any present writing norms; I would not change the now-unusual use of, e.g., spaced dashes immediately after a colon or period/stop that was common in Victorian through 1920s writing, if quoting something from that era, and I would trust that readers' brains would not malfunction upon encountering it in a quoted passage, for the same reason we don't change the spelling of Elizabethan English when we quote that, either. It's usually not necessary to use square-bracketed annotations in such cases.)

I've checked every British style guide I can find, and zero of them recommend '..."...?".' or "...'...?'.", so I'm pretty sure it was just a typo on the part of The Independent. The most probable way this happened was a draft of the form "...'...?' [something]." had an editor later remove or relocate the [something], and the stop/period was simply moved over. It's a probably moot philosophical matter whether we should care about accurately quoting the newspaper's poor punctuation, when what WP is trying to quote isn't really the newspaper but the person's statement quoted by the newspaper, and as for that exact snippet, the person expressing an internal thought, which properly should have been in italics, not question marks, to begin with. The Independent dropped the ball twice on this one; what they probably should have printed was "But I didn't want to be pigeon-holed ... I felt like they were saying: Do you want to play the gay card?". The easiest way for WP to work around the mess is to not quote the newspaper's entire passage, but to extract the subject's own material out of it and write around it, as I illustrated.

There are no styles, of anything, for which some outlying case can't be found that makes application of a rule require some thought. Discovery of a wild-'n'-wacky case doesn't prove or disprove anything about any particular style rule.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  16:22, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

It seems likely to me that Slim's "What if you don't have access to the source?" concern does not refer to cases that don't satisfy WP:V but rather when, say, the source is a printed book and the Wikignome doesn't have a link to click on. I've found myself in that situation. "Move it all outside" doesn't work if you want to write in correct American English; it's not allowed. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:38, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Revert the changes that made the section confusing; then make it better

The editor who insists that this section is confusing significantly altered the section on 31 August 2015, in a way that made it confusing, a self-fulfilling prophecy: [59] [60]. This should obviously be undone. There's no discussion anywhere on the talk page as of that date seeking consensus for such a change. [61] Before this change, it was much easier to understand, though not perfect.

There was no such wording in MOS at the beginning of that month [62], nor at the beginning of that year [63] nor the year before that [64].

The following wording was the result of a long consensus discussion concluding in July 2014 [65]:

Consensus on the English Wikipedia is to use logical quotation style in all articles, regardless of the variety of English in which they are written. Where a quotation is a sentence and coincides with the end of the sentence containing it, terminal punctuation should normally be placed inside the closing quotation mark if the terminal punctuation of the quoted material is the same as is appropriate for the containing sentence. Where the quotation is a single word or fragment, terminal punctuation should be placed outside.

While I wouldn't want to invalidate the useful clarifications to this wording that's happened in the interim, we can certainly undue the confusing addition that was made without consensus. This should probably be done immediately, since even the one who added it concedes that the section is confusing, yet we appeared to reach some level of consensus in July 2014 that the wording settled on then was not.

However, some other improvements can be made that should resolve pretty much all confusion. The present wording reads (red markup indicating the problematic material):

On the English Wikipedia, use the "logical quotation" style in all articles, regardless of the variety of English in which they are written. Include terminal punctuation within the quotation marks only if it was present in the original material, and otherwise place it after the closing quotation mark. For the most part, this means treating periods and commas in the same way as question marks: Keep them inside the quotation marks if they apply only to the quoted material and outside if they apply to the whole sentence. Examples are given below. ... If the quotation is a full sentence and it coincides with the end of the sentence containing it, place terminal punctuation inside the closing quotation mark. If the quotation is a single word or fragment, place the terminal punctuation outside. ... If the quoted sentence is followed by a clause that should be preceded by a comma, omit the full stop [a comma is missing, and semicolons are unaccounted for] but other terminal punctuation, such as a question mark or exclamation mark, may be retained. A question should always end with a question mark.

Taking the problems bit by bit:

1. We already know we're on the English Wikipedia, and all of MOS applies just to the English Wikipedia. There is no valid reason, only a PoV reason, to insert this sort of "dire warning" here. It suggests that this rule does not apply to simple.wikipedia.org, which isn't true. It suggests that this is nonsense made up by Wikipedia, which isn't true.
2. "regardless of the variety of English in which they are written" is pointless, and appears to have no purpose or at least effect other than to encourage perennial WP:ENGVAR-related activism.
3. "For the most part, this means treating periods and commas in the same way as question marks: Keep them inside the quotation marks if they apply only to the quoted material and outside if they apply to the whole sentence." This is just tautological and circular. Question marks are terminal punctuation. It's like "I treat my dogs as dogs because they're dogs." "For the most part" simply inspires editors to immediate ask, "what exceptions are you implying, and why?", so it's worse than unhelpful. The "Keep them inside the quotation marks if ... and outside if ..." material is just an unclear restatement of the immediately preceding sentence. Further, the use of "apply" here is ambiguous, and strongly suggests the actually British practice of punctuation "according to the sense" of the quoting sentence, which LQ does not do. LQ is simply: Do not misquote the original punctuation, by either addition or alteration (also described as punctuating in the sense of the original quotation, though all this use of "sense" is confusing, and we have have an ostensibly reliable source, The Guardian saying so.
4. As discussed above, "If the quotation is a full sentence" is confusing, and is clearer with "was", i.e. meaning "in the original context".
5. It's redundant to have "a single word or fragment" since fragment includes a single-word fragment. It almost implies a fragment of a word. What we really mean is: when it's not a complete sentence or most of one that we've supplied an intro to.
6. We're not accounting for the case of changing semicolons into commas.
7. We don't need to link to the Full stop article here.
8. I'm skipping the problem that we're linking to an article section that incorrectly implies that LQ is the same as BQ (see if you can guess who made it say that?), but that will be fixed at the article later, and the link repaired here when the logical quotation section exists there.

A cleaned up version, tweaked for a little extra flow and communication, looks much like this:

In all articles, use the "logical quotation" style, which is consistent with the principle of minimal change: Include terminal punctuation within the quotation marks only if it was present in the original material, and do not alter it; otherwise place it after the closing quotation mark. Examples are given below. ... If the quotation was a full sentence and its terminal punctuation coincides with that of the Wikipedia sentence quoting it, place terminal punctuation inside the closing quotation mark. If the quotation is fragmentary, forming neither a full sentence nor the bulk of the sentence quoting it, place the terminal punctuation outside. ... If quoted material is followed by a clause that should be preceded by a comma, omit a full stop (period) or semicolon in the original at that point. Other terminal punctuation, such as a question mark or exclamation mark, may be retained. A question should always end with a question mark.

I don't have a semicolon-related Finding Nemo example to match the rest in that section (which maybe should be scrapped in favor of something more akin to encyclopedic prose). We'd be more likely to have a case where the source read something like "According to Tuesday's speech by the President of Zimbabwe: 'This will be resolved at the next UN General Assembly; count on it.'", quoted by us as "This will be resolved at the next UN General Assembly", the Zimbabwean president said. Both British journalism and American/typesetters' style would have "This will be resolved at the next UN General Assembly," the Zimbabwean president said. This illustrates clearly the primary difference between LQ and BQ: The latter allows (even demands, depending on the BQ variant) a change to the quotation's internal punctuation to suit the "sense" of the quoting sentence, such as converting a period or semicolon into a comma and keeping it inside the quote. AQ/TQ would put it inside the quote no matter what, simply as a rule of that style. Both falsify the quotations's accuracy in a way that LQ does not permit.

Anyway, this rewrite is shorter, way less PoV-pushing, clearer in several ways, and adding missing guidance.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  21:04, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

SmC, I recommend that you entirely cease saying what I meant when I said something. You're too far off too often. I am saying that the rule itself is confusing. The passage has gone through many incarnations, to the point that we can say that, even if the rule is stable, the wording isn't.

I edited that rule to make it less confusing. To someone who didn't grow up with British style, "Do what we do with question marks" is a lot easier to recognize than—what word were you recommending—"syntactically"? That's going to be a new a word for a lot of our target audience.

Considering that most of the people who challenge this rule come in objecting to it on ENGVAR grounds (and some of them didn't even know that there was a British style and thought that we'd just gotten it entirely wrong), acknowledging that this rule is an exception to ENGVAR is like likely to head off objections, not start them. "On the English Wikipedia" warns the reader not to use this style off Wikipedia. Students and the like may find that their grades suffer if they copy the MoS's rule; they deserve to at least be tipped off. That "principle of minimal change" bit should stay out. It pushes the POV that British style is somehow better than American style. It's also factually untrue. This rule is not in place because of the principle of minimal change. It's in place because some early MoSers wanted a Britishism to match what they believed to be the Americanism of double quotation marks.

SmC, if you think that the MoS should say "Logical quotation is X and Y," we should first confirm that the majority of sources say so. According to the Journal of Irish and Scottish Studies "logical quotation" is placement by grammatical sense. It is also my position that we should either give the most common name for the practice—"British—or no name at all. It would be entirely practical to give only instructions in the MoS and save all factual claims for the article space where they can be properly sourced.

Quotation marks in English does not "incorrectly imply" that British and logical are two names for the same system. It directly cites sources that say so. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:49, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

What your intent was isn't relevant. The result has been a mess, and it needs to be fixed.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  16:31, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Let's line up the sources on British/logical

If we're going to state the words "logical" or "British" in the MoS (and it might be best to just say "this system" and link to the article space), then we should establish with reasonable certainty that that is the correct name for the instructions at hand.

SmC was industrious enough to name some sources in one of his posts today (some of which were already cited by others but most not), so let's look at what they say. The issue at hand is whether British and logical are two names for the same system or two different systems and, if so, how they differ. It has been argued that "British" is placement by grammatical sense and that "logical" is placement by original position.

• Journal of Irish and Scottish Studies "Punctuation marks are placed inside the quotation marks only if the sense of the punctuation is part of the quotation; this system is referred to as logical quotation." So it says that placement by grammatical sense, not placement by original position, is called "logical quotation."

• Style Guide of the Journal of the Royal Australian Historical Society ...does not mention this punctuation issue at all. It says to preserve the punctuation within the quoted material, but does not address the edges. SmC, were you looking at something else? It seems likely that there would be a longer version of this style guide.

• Journal of the Australian Catholic Historical Society I couldn't find this one online, so I don't know exactly what it says.

• History of Education Review Like JRAHS, this one doesn't mention this issue directly. It's clear from its examples that it uses British style (it places commas after the single quotation marks around titles of short-form works, which is the same in both placement by sense and placement by position). But it gives no instructions, does not say anything about grammatical sense or original position, and does not list either name.

• Scientific Style and Format, British version "This manual recommends the British style for the positioning of quotation marks in relation to other punctuation. In the British style (OUP 1983) 'All signs of punctuation used with words in quotation marks must be placed according to the sense" It cites the Oxford University Press and Hart's Rules in the same paragraph. On the previous page, it describes the by-sense system as "logical" but does not use the word "logical" as a name.

• Health & History: Journal of the Australian & New Zealand Society for the History of Medicine "5. Commas and full stops must appear before the end quotation mark. All other punctuation [...] This rule also applies when using 'scare quotes.'" (Single quotation marks used in original.) So this one appears to be advocating American style, though it does not give any name for the practice or describe it as American or as anything else. This source is neutral on whether British and logical are the same or different. Is there more than one journal called Health and History?

• A search for Journal of Entrepreneurial Practice Review took me to SmC's own WP essay. I clicked the link to the source[66] but it seems to have aged out. Neither the current link nor the essay text lists what it said.

• Chicago Manual of Style 16th ed: "In an alternative system, sometimes called British style (as described in the Oxford Style Manual ...), single quotation marks are used, and only those punctuation points that appeared in the original material should be included within the quotation marks; all others follow the closing quotation marks. (Exceptions to the rule are widespread: periods, for example, are routinely placed inside any quotation that begins with a capital letter and forms a grammatically complete sentence.)" (Copypasted from one of SmC's posts.) So this one says that both placement by sense and placement by original position fall under the name "British."

If we do find that the majority of sources that call it "British" say X and the majority that call it "logical" say Y, then the idea that they are two different things could hold water. So far, that's not the case. We can keep looking for more. Here's another question, though: Is there any source that says it's okay to do either of these things in general-audience American English? CMoS 14 (and I've heard 16) say to use it for some types of specialist writing, but I've never seen a reputable guide recommend it for the kind of thing that we do on Wikipedia. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:31, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Wavelength posted this one to MOS:SUPPORTS today. I think it's the same one Dicklyon was talking about. It's a 1997 article by...

• Dr. Larry Trask, Professor of Linguistics at the University of Sussex. "Finally, there remains the problem of whether to put other punctuation marks inside or outside the quotation marks. There are two schools of thought on this, which I shall call the logical view and the conventional view. The logical view holds that the only punctuation marks which should be placed inside the quotation marks are those that form part of the quotation, while all others should be placed outside."[67] So this one says that "logical" is placement by position (and it provides one of the rare names for American style).

This is the professional opinion of one person, but it is clearly a professional opinion. I'd definitely rank Dr. Trask above both Marsh and Yagoda. While we're here...

• Chicago Manual of Style 14th ed. "The British style of positioning periods and commas in relation to the closing quotation mark is based on the same logic that in the American system governs the placement of question marks and exclamation points; if they belong to the quoted material, they are placed within the closing quotation mark; if they belong to the including sentence as a whole, they are placed after the quotation mark." "Belong to" can be read as either original position or as grammatical. The word "logic" here refers to grammatical sense, but it is used descriptively. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:04, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Sourcing work belongs in mainspace. And for the zillionth time, some American sources that confuse and conflate British and logical quotation cannot wish away the sources which define logical quotation and the sources which define the several varieties of British quotation. They define different styles with different rationales, not the same style with the same rationale. You can repeat this pattern "ignore everything but sources that agree with my fantasy" pattern of yours until the end of time and it will still never make LQ and BQ the same thing. This re-attempt to equate them is off-topic. The topic is cleaning up the confusing wording, mostly added by you, without consensus, to the section in question.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  16:31, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

SmC, I feel the need to restate that these are the sources that you mentioned by name in your post. I couldn't have cherry picked them because it was your basket. I looked up what they said and typed it out here. That's the opposite of ignoring them. Even so, if you think these sources are not representative of the real situation, please do provide more. Like I said, I couldn't find the text for JACHS or JEPR and there might be more than one journal called Health and History.

When the MoS says "do this," then you could argue that we don't need sources (though I say otherwise), but when it says "This is true," we do need sources. We could also move the assertion to the mainspace by saying "this system" with a link to quotation marks in English.

You are saying that the American sources have "confused and conflated" things and that you think they should be disregarded here. That is relevant. Do you have a source that corroborates this or did you draw this conclusion on your own? If the latter, how did you draw it? What was your reasoning? Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:04, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

While we're discussing SmC's basket...

• University of Melbourne School of Historical and Philosophical Studies This page doesn't mention the issue. Did you mean a different one?
• I found Modern Humanities Research Association Style Guide (London, 2013) while I was looking for University of Adelaide: In section 9.1 it says to preserve original punctuation. It does not give any name or description for its rules, but it does offer useful information: "If a short quotation is used at the end of a sentence, the final full stop should be outside the closing quotation mark ... This rule applies even when a quotation ends with a full stop in the original, and when a quotation forms a complete sentence in the original but, as quoted, is integrated within a sentence of introduction or comment without intervening punctuation ... For quotations which are either interrogatory or exclamatory, punctuation marks should appear both before and after the closing quotation mark ... The final full stop should precede the closing quotation mark only when the quotation forms a complete sentence and is separated from the preceding passage by a punctuation mark. Such a quotation may be interrupted ..." This addresses the misplaced comma issue that I brought up last summer.
• MIT Press says "A comma or period occurs inside double quotation marks; a colon or semicolon outside" but it also says "All punctuation marks occur outside single quotation marks. Exception: In the English translation below a non-English example." Like MHRA, It does not use the names "British" or "American" or "logical," so it's not immediately relevant to the issue of what these things should be called. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:55, 7 January 2016 (UTC)