Template:MOS/R

Manual of Style

This page falls within the scope of the Wikipedia:Manual of Style, a collaborative effort focused on enhancing clarity, consistency, and cohesiveness across the Manual of Style (MoS) guidelines by addressing inconsistencies, refining language, and integrating guidance effectively.Manual of StyleWikipedia:WikiProject Manual of StyleTemplate:WikiProject Manual of StyleManual of Style articles This page falls under the contentious topics procedure and is given additional attention, as it closely associated to the English Wikipedia Manual of Style, and the article titles policy. Both areas are subjects of debate. Contributors are urged to review the awareness criteria carefully and exercise caution when editing. For information on Wikipedia's approach to the establishment of new policies and guidelines, refer to WP:PROPOSAL. Additionally, guidance on how to contribute to the development and revision of Wikipedia policies of Wikipedia's policy and guideline documents is available, offering valuable insights and recommendations.

I just learned today about the Wikipedia style convention for logical punctuation, per MOS:COMMA and MOS:LQ. Could someone please explain the logic behind this rule?

Why is the American-based Wikipedia using British punctuation rules? Not only does America have a significantly larger population size (which leads one to logically infer that it also has many more writing professionals), but the American style for commas and quotation marks is also endorsed by the Modern Language Association, the Associated Press, and I believe several other notable organizations (but I don't want to assume and be incorrect).

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the way I see it, we've adopted an uncommon rule -- I had no idea that this comma philosophy even existed -- when I think it's safe to say that a large portion of our writers and editors are Americans who are going to follow the American style, and we're going to have rampant inconsistency as a result.

Perhaps my thoughts make me a close-minded American, but I just don't really see the logic behind it.--Jp07 (talk) 16:17, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in response to your question on my talk page, logical punctuation has been part of the MOS since it was first put together in 2002.[1] There are other things in the MOS that follow American convention over the British, such as the strong preference for the double quotation mark rather than the single.

In terms of grammar and spelling, by widespread consensus, any of the major national variants of English are acceptable in articles. This has also been in the MOS since the beginning. There are obvious caveats to this (the spelling needs to be consistent within the article, common ground should be sought where possible, words that would be confusing in other dialects should be avoided, etc.) and it's worked fairly well for the last nine years.Cúchullain ^t/c 16:38, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'm not trying to question you at all, and I appreciate your help; I agree that it's best to follow the stylebook as long as that convention is a part of the stylebook, but I think it's also important to note that organizations bound by a stylebook (like the Associated Press) publish new versions. The AP publishes a new stylebook every year to make improvements and changes. I don't think tradition alone is a good reason to follow a rule.

I did review those articles, and I guess I sort of understand the desire to avoid changing an author's content, but can someone give me an example where it would be necessary or even beneficial to know that the author placed a comma or a period at the end of the quote? Do those ever add meaning? I can see it in poetic verse, maybe, but otherwise I can't think of a situation where that's important.

I think it requires a decision between whether it's more important to know where the author placed his punctuation -- I honestly don't think that's important -- or for Wikipedia to be consistent. I think it's going to be a battle to be consistent if we stick with logical punctuation.--Jp07 (talk) 16:43, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't try comparing the population of the US to the UK. Many countries in the Commonwealth have English as an official language and many of those use "British" usage rules. For example, India has a lot more people than the US and English is an official language there. Just thoughts. --Airborne84 (talk) 18:04, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely. We already have agreement on this, at WP:ENGVAR. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:11, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm asking for details because I'm not very familiar with this convention, as I've pointed out. As a career writer and editor, I believe that it's best to question the logic behind the conventions that we use, and we should use those conventions that best preserve clarity and consistency. I used to manage a publication, and when a consensus of editors came to the conclusion that a convention needed to be changed, it was, effective immediately.

I have pointed out my bias, and that is why I'm seeking outside input in this forum for discussion.--Jp07 (talk) 18:47, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because this page was written by a small coterie of those who want to use it as a tool to make Everybody Do It MY Way.

Logical punctuation has a minor advantage for some readers who do not realize that ," and ." are compound signs in American punctuation - and who care about de minimis details; it has a significant disadvantage in that it is harder to do accurately, and impossible to proof-read.

It would be a great improvement to the encyclopedia to acknowledge that there are two systems, that they both have advantages, and that articles may use either consistently.

Pending agreement on this, we should at least mark that the present text is (as it has been every three months or so since its imposition) disputed. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:11, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we should look at it as a desire to impose control over other writers and editors. I suppose this "control" is a side effect of a stylebook, but that's not the end goal. The goal is to maintain consistency, which is the only way to achieve a professional product. And although inter-article consistency is definitely a must, best practice is really to maintain the same rules throughout the publication (i.e. all of Wikipedia). Whatever is decided, it really would be best to use it all the way throughout.

I think we're trying not to step on toes here, but there is such a thing as too much political correctness. When it interferes with the project's perceived professionalism, and hence its credibility (which is at stake), I think we need to get tough and get over our sensitivities.--Jp07 (talk) 19:15, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, power shouldn't be the goal; but for a small and turbulent minority, it is.

Nor does MOS achieve professionalism by universal consistency: it doesn't do that now. See WP:CONSISTENCY: we seek consistency within articles, as other publishers do within individual contributions to an anthology; but for some of the most notable differences in English (favor/favour; red, white and blue/red, white, and blue) our guidance is for inconsistency.

Our road to professionalism is accuracy, verifiability, neutrality, clarity; achieving uniformity on quotation marks does little for these, and is at best false advertising without them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:26, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Um... does anyone else see the inconsistency of talking about achieving a "professional" product when everyone involved in creating it is a volunteer? As long as "anyone can edit" (which is a core concept behind Wikipedia) it is unrealistic to kid ourselves about achieving a professional product. Our goal is (and should be) to achieve the best amateur product that we can. Blueboar (talk) 23:00, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's a very significant difference between "professional" and "professional standard". Malleus Fatuorum 23:11, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Still, I don't think an article with major WP:NPOV/WP:OR/WP:V problems but a professional-looking style would be better than the same article with a crappy style. If anything, the latter is less likely to deceive readers. (This is why I don't usually copy-edit articles unless I have at least a vague idea of what they're talking about and know that what they say is at least vaguely plausible.) ― A. di M.​_plé​^dréachtaí 23:51, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And both styles here are professional - they're used by professional proofreaders. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:59, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was commenting on what Blueboar and Malleus Fatuorum said on a general level, not on this issue in particular. (FWIW, I prefer “logical” quotation myself, but I think both should be allowed, and if the article I'm editing uses traditional American quotation consistently, I leave that alone.) ― A. di M.​_plé​^dréachtaí 00:10, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.

But does it also hold as a general point? We are rarely dealing with a controversy between professional style and crappy style; we are dealing with points on which there are several professional styles, and some self-appointed maven wants everybody to use only his choice. (Sometimes his choice appears to be something he's made up, but that's another question; even then it's often a rational but unattested invention.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:31, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that both styles are equally professional. The majority of writing professionals, however, look for and expect pervasive consistency in any product. I don't think we should relegate the principle of consistency when it comes from the writing industry.--Jp07 (talk) 03:59, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We'vw already done so; on spelling, which is far more visible, we've actively rejected consistency; see WP:ENGVAR. On other points where there are two reasonable and wisely used alternatives, we've abandoned it. We're a collaboration. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:43, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm an American, and I prefer logical punctuation... This isn't so much of a regional variation as it is a profession one, in my opinion. People in the sciences and engineering tend to use logical punctuation, whereas those in the humanities and the arts seem to prefer more traditional punctuation. Wikipedia has a fairly strong foundation in the tech world, so it really shouldn't be that surprising that we seem to prefer logical punctuation.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 23:09, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then use it, and let others do otherwise. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:59, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The American style guides were largely constrained by the Network effect, and couldn't change away from the illogical style. Wikipedia had a "clean" start, and could get away with adopting its own practices, obviously within reason. It would have been silly to decide that three quote marks was the right way to do quotations. However, given that it is the English Wikipedia, rather than the American Wikipedia, when confronted with a choice between one rule that made sense, and another rule that made absolutely no sense, and had nothing going for it other that "that's the way we've always done it", deliberately chose to go with the logical rule.

Works for me. If you are a professional writer not at Wikipedia, and want to continue using the illogical rule, go for it. I don't.--SPhilbrickT 02:05, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the comma rule name calling is really necessary. All I did was ask for a justification, and as far as I see it, I still haven't really got one. Give me a specific justification for this rule aside from Wikipedia tradition and the (seeming) desire to deviate from American writing industry tradition simply because it was the tradition.

Thing #1: Just because it's called logical punctuation doesn't necessarily make it more logical than any other rule. You can label anything in the world "logical," but to assume that the label makes it logical is a fallacy. In fact, I see "logical" punctuation as very illogical from a copy editing perspective because it's impossible to maintain consistency, it's (nearly) impossible to check correct usage, and readers are going to perceive errors (real or imagined).

Thing #2: Maybe this is just my perception, but I feel like we're fighting "the way we've always done it" because we can. Is that and should that be a goal of Wikipedia?

Thing #3: I would like to see more solid facts in this discussion. I don't have many; that's why I'm here.

I'm not trying to be inflammatory; given my background, I'm simply questioning a policy that I feel could be improved. Please consider my ideas.--Jp07 (talk) 04:01, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is my understanding of why logical punctuation is superior (and has nothing to do with my nationality or the way I was taught in school): If the name of a song is in quotation marks (e.g. "Let It Be"), then in a list ("Let It Be", "Here Comes the Sun" and "Hey Jude") it makes more sense to put the comma outside the quotation marks because the comma is not part of the name of the song. In a quote: John Smith stated that "there are not enough bananas". makes more sense if the full stop is not part of the quoted material, otherwise you are altering the quote. Logical punctuation is clearer and cannot be misunderstood, unlike the other system. In my opinion, logical punctuation also looks better. I can't see any advantages to illogical punctuation, unless you personally think it is more aesthetically pleasing, which isn't really important. McLerristarr | Mclay1 05:10, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for trying to explain it. My initial point was about copy editing, though -- how would you like to try to copy edit logical punctuation? You would have to look up every single piece of quoted material to check for usage. That is so beyond practical that it's not even funny.

And aside from that "illogical punctuation" isn't illogical simply because the punctuation is inside of the quotation marks; commas don't come at the end of a complete string in English because that's inappropriate usage. And with your quote example, it's not really altering the content by putting a period inside because you can't pronounce the period symbol. It has no sound and no meaning. It is simply present in writing to establish and clarify syntax. There is no period in spoken language. By saying that it changed the quotation, we would have to think that he said "there are not enough bananas period." In which case, we would write that he said "there are not enough bananas PERIOD." The ." means "quote and sentence over; expect a new thought to come at you." It neither contributes to nor detracts anything from the content of the quoted material.

I think it would be best to stop arguing, however, which is most logical (because that could go on forever); we should rather argue which is most useful in practice. I think I have a valid, indisputable point on the copy editing.--Jp07 (talk) 05:34, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The difficulty of copy-editing is why the Chicago Manual of Style recommends against "logical" punctuation. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:43, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. We could easily say that if someone writes John Smith stated that "there are not enough bananas". we would also need to check if there is part of the quote or not so it would be easier to just get rid of the quotation marks. However, that would be silly. Why bother checking whether the punctuation was part of the quote or not? Do it if you're putting the quote into the article, that's not hard, but why check if someone else was right? It doesn't really matter. Another distinction is made with logical punctuation in the case of a broken quote: "There are not enough bananas", stated John Smith, "We need to grow more". (I don't know if I followed all the MoS rules in that example but the point is about the punctuation). Putting the comma inside the quotation marks would imply that the comma separated the two statements in the original quote, which is incorrect. Another case is if a song contained a full stop: John Smith wrote the song "Full Stop.". Although that looks a little odd, I would say that is the correct way of writing it, since the first full stop is just part of the name, not the sentence punctuation. John Smith wrote the song "Full Stop.." looks a lot worse. McLerristarr | Mclay1 05:49, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, in U.S. English, if the period was part of the song, you wouldn't need the second period. The one inside the quotation marks does double-duty. Darkfrog24 (talk) 11:57, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, this is painful, but at this point I say let's agree to disagree on logic. That's going to become a circular argument. Let's talk about practice exclusively. Which is more practical? See my comments on copy editing. Accuracy and consistency are important, so if we're going to go with a style, we need to do our best to follow it or we might as well have no style at all. And in the publishing world, it is an editor's job to check areas where errors commonly pop up, and this would definitely be one of those areas. Who wants to be in charge of checking quoted material?

I'm willing to estimate that about 50 percent of editors don't even know about this MOS rule, so they're not going to know that they need to maintain original punctuation when they pull the quote. Who wants to go back and check the quotes, particularly those pulled from protected databases and hard copy-only resources?--Jp07 (talk) 06:06, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, it really doesn't matter if the punctuation is slightly off with quotes. I'd rather have a logical system with some errors than an illogical system which is immune to errors because the system is to deliberately use what others would consider errors. McLerristarr | Mclay1 07:03, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

JP07, you are right to think that this is strange. The bottom line is that WP:LQ is here solely because most of the contributors to this talk page just (WP:IDONTLIKEIT/WP:ILIKEIT) prefer it to American English punctuation. You're also right that many Wikipedians don't know about this rule. The fact that a disproportionate number of Wikipedians were programmers might also have something to do with it. There is exactly one time when British vs. American punctuation actually makes a non-aesthetic difference, and that's when dealing with raw data strings. (Type in "enter.doc/qr". etc.) WP:LQ has been challenged many times. Some of its supporters claim that it is, as the MoS says, less prone to ambiguity and subsequent errors, but no one has ever provided even one example of American English causing even one error on Wikipedia, ever. This isn't because American punctuation isn't used here. It is. There are even front page featured articles that have used American punctuation on their big day. I don't know if you know this, but almost every single American English style guide treats American punctuation as correct and LQ as incorrect in formal American English writing. If WP: MoS were held to the same standards as regular articles, those for reliable sources and no original research, then WP:LQ would have been changed long ago. I 100% support changing the Wikipedia punctuation policy to follow ENGVAR. Use British/LQ when it is correct to do so and, at the absolute least, allow correct American punctuation on articles that are on clearly American topics. Darkfrog24 (talk) 11:55, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah... thanks for the backup. I kind of gave up, though. I got tired of asking for justifications and getting the "logical"/"illogical" appellations and tradition. And I do think it is odd that the writing prescriptivism seems to be coming mostly from computer programmers, and from what I can tell (i.e. per user pages and comment content), those who do not have experience as professional writers. I don't quite understand that. I do completely understand why the period and comma placement is important in programming, as I have a programming background as well... but programming and writing are two totally different things. The human mind does not process syntactic symbols in the same way that a computer does. And yeah, that's about what I thought with the style guides. I'm most familiar with AP and MLA, so I didn't want to make any more assumptions, but I had never heard differently on comma/period placement until yesterday.

I think this is a losing battle, though. Even if you win this one, there's WP:IAR. I think it's more important to take on the battle for consistency before taking on specific rules. It seems like non-writers typically don't find consistency valuable in their writing, but both expert writers and novices will notice a lack of consistency and will critique it. Strange.

Maybe it's just me, but I would think it would be wise for the predominantly programmer-run project to seek out the advice of writers...--Jp07 (talk) 12:33, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You would think IAR would apply, but nope. I actually got brought up on AN/I for using American punctuation in articles that already had it. If we can get enough people, though, we might be able to modify or replace WP:LQ with something more sensible. Maybe the pro-LQ crowd would accept just allowing American punctuation (as opposed to requiring it) on American-subject articles. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:49, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've privately softened a little bit on this one over the years; but what I really can't abide by is "this," where the inclusion of the comma within the word-as-word or the quotation jars with its very obvious identity as part of the main sentence. Also, I'm concerned that within-article consistency really could be achieved if the guideline is looser. Tony (talk) 14:16, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, Tony. I guess I shouldn't be surprised that a reasonable person can change his opinions over time by continual observation of the situation to which they are relevant. However, I'd like to say that what people do and don't find jarring is in the eye of the beholder. If anything, the use of American style in words-as-words situations is even less likely to cause real confusion than with quotes from sources. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:24, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And we recommend presenting words-as-words in italics, which removes the problem; both systems recommend this, because italics have no visible closing marker. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:30, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't think that IAR would apply. Despite its name, it doesn't literally mean you can ignore any rule. I prefer to think of it as "yes, there's technically a rule that covers this, but when the rule was codified, they didn't really consider this situation, and had they considered it, they would have accepted that this situation is different. That might mean the general rule needs modification, or it might simply mean that this situation should be considered a one-off exception". However, when we have rules that squarely apply, and have been repeatedly discussed and consensus is that they do apply to this situation, you don't get to use IAR.--SPhilbrickT 16:39, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm most concerned with is pervasive consistency. Most people who read Wikipedia will read more than one article. So if one article is consistent but there are multiple variants elsewhere, I see intra-article consistency as moot. But I appreciate your diplomacy.--Jp07 (talk) 14:27, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am of the opinion that inter-article consistency is not necessary or at least more trouble than it's worth on Wikipedia. To effect it, we'd have to go all the way, pick just one national variety of English and use it on every single article for punctuation, spelling and all other considerations. Choosing American English punctuation to the exclusion of British/LQ wouldn't solve our problem; it would just reverse it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:45, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah... J-school might have made me a stickler for consistency.--Jp07 (talk) 14:50, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Always ignore the Manual of Style; everybody else does. But thanks for trying to fix it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:43, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice to have inter-article consistency, but that would force us to say things like "The American flag is coloured red, white, and blue" or "The English flag is colored white and red". In a publication requiring editorial approval, that's possible and even preferable. On Wikipedia, it's untenable.

Regarding punctuation: I've never understood why anyone uses traditional American punctuation. I remember being in sixth grade and learning the rules for commas and periods in quotation marks, and I remember asking the teacher why in the world would we do that, it makes no sense! I've since realized that it has its own internal logic (as PMAnderson noted, comma-quote and period-quote are always read together even though they are two glyphs), but I still don't like it (I don't think you shouldn't put glyphs between quotation marks unless those glyphs can be attributed to the source you are quoting). My own preference is to leave punctuation outside quotation marks. This has the same copyediting advantages as traditional American punctuation while, in my opinion at least, being more accurate and prettier.

I agree with you that so-called "logical quotation" offers huge copyediting difficulties, and the name isn't very good. It might be possible to change to the system I mentioned above where punctuation is always outside the quotation marks, since that's already quite similar to what the MoS requires (and in fact you sometimes see people moving punctuation outside the quotation marks in the mistaken belief that it's an MoS requirement). But you seem to be advocating traditional American punctuation, and I don't think the politics of that will work: The non-Americans will protest, the Americans aren't nationalist and traditionalist enough to think that the way they were taught in school is necessarily better, and the result will likely be no consensus. You certainly won't change this rule by bringing it up here, where it's been talked to death. If you really want to change it, then you'd need to start an RfC on this topic here and advertise it very widely to pull in editors who aren't MoS regulars; and you'd have to do a very good job of convincing them. Ozob (talk) 17:54, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah... I will actually receive an American license to teach English and journalism in August, and I am of the thought that some of the lacking nationalism in America has to do with the way that we teach the English language in schools. I have yet to decide whether more nationalism would be a good or a bad thing, but there seems to be a movement among language arts educators away from teaching grammar; they often explain this by saying that grammar instruction "doesn't improve writing skills." I would agree with this sentiment -- writing content will not improve with greater understanding of grammar rules, but perceived credibility among readers definitely gets a boost when you demonstrate a mastery of the English language, and sometimes grammar and punctuation are important for clarity (so I guess in those situations this knowledge would improve writing skills). An ability to follow grammar and punctuation rules is also necessary for anyone who is interested in pursuing a career in writing, and it also helps with a number of other careers where writing is used.

But I think we often characterize the English language as illogical and silly despite the fact that it really isn't, and this damages the relationship that Americans develop with their own tongue. True, it is a mutt of a tongue, and it is difficult for people of other languages to learn, but there is some logic behind every language rule. It would probably be a little more... unified if it wasn't for Roman, French, and Nordic invasions of England, but what can you do.--Jp07 (talk) 11:31, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and on the nationalism, it doesn't help that America still doesn't have a legally recognized official tongue. --Jp07 (talk) 11:52, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have long thought that the movement away from teaching grammar was a terrible idea. I receive, on a regular basis, emails from people who ought to be able to write better but can't. It makes them look bad. I've often wondered why the movement away from grammar started. Do teachers not teach grammar because they genuinely believe that, say, not recognizing misplaced modifiers doesn't improve writing skills? (On the other hand, Norman Mailer got away with it in the infamous opening line of Harlot's Ghost.) Is it because grammar is objective and doesn't allow the favoritism games that provide some with such perverse pleasure? I wonder if it's now because they don't know anything about grammar themselves.

I agree that English isn't as illogical as it's made out to be. But I think that reputation is a symptom of the lack of English grammar instruction. English teachers will tell their students not to write in the passive voice, and they consider this a vitally important rule, but they can't give a precise description of what the passive voice is. If they could, they would realize at once how silly the rule is. I think more harm has been done to English grammar by reformers than by all the the invasions of England, because the reformers moved the emphasis away from how real people write and speak and placed it on trivialities like passive voice or which versus that. Now all anyone knows are these incorrect trivialities, and they can't write a single clear sentence.

I'm ranting again... Oh, well. Ozob (talk) 13:42, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Ozob: People use "aesthetic" punctuation because it's almost as easy as the system you outline and a large number of anglophones will understand it: all those who use it, and a large body of those who don't but have heard of it.

Ozob's punctuation would not be a bad system; it works oddly for quoting full paragraphs, where everything but the final period will be inside quotes; both existing systems tuck the closing period inside. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:19, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would be behind an RFC, actually. There are several good reasons for removing the ban on American punctuation.

1. The overwhelming majority of reliable sources on American English actively prefer American punctuation for general writing—which is what encyclopedia articles are.

2. The idea that American punctuation causes misquotation, ambiguity or errors in subsequent editing is original research.

3. American punctuation is already used on Wikipedia, despite the ban, and has not been found to cause misquotation, ambiguity or errors in subsequent editing to any detectable extent. (Also original research, admitted.)

4. Taking 3 into account, the ban only serves to punish and insult writers trained to use American punctuation and to please people who (WP:IDONTLIKEIT) just don't like American punctuation or who (WP:NOTACRYSTALBALL) think that "this is where English is going," etc. If American English ever changes to the British/LQ style, we can just change the MoS then.

5. Using punctuation that is correct relative to its context would make Wikipedia look more professional and precise.

6. ENGVAR is already a proven policy and it is reasonable to believe that extending it to punctuation would work well. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:02, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I, too, think an RfC would be a good idea because our discussion here seems to be a bit cyclical.--Jp07 (talk) 16:46, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I too would approve of extending ENGVAR to punctuation. I see no reason to mandate one punctuation style over another on a Wikipedia wide scale when both are valid and acceptable styles. Blueboar (talk) 13:37, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Though it’s not high on my list, I also would permit “aesthetic” punctuation here, and second Blueboar’s comment about ENGVAR; we could argue forever about which practice is better and get nowhere—AmE and BrE sometimes differ, and one is no better than the other. I would like ENGVAR to include a recommendation that the combination of grammar, spelling, and punctuation be at least plausible to one accustomed to the particular ENGVAR; in many cases, this would allow some flexibility (e.g., some British publishers such as OUP use unspaced em dashes, and the BBC web site uses “aesthetic” punctuation), but the combinations should not be such that a British reader of an article supposedly in BrE thinks “this is whacked”.

Incidentally, I certainly have not found US technical publications to favor “logical” punctuation here. I guess it just depends on one’s field and the particular publications. JeffConrad (talk) 04:12, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's funny to see its being called "aesthetic punctuation". It looks quite ugly to me but that's in the eye of the beholder. I would oppose a change to the guideline on this not just because I don't like it but because it changes the quote. JIMp _talk·cont 08:46, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jimp, in all the times we've debated this issue, no one has yet provided even one example of American punctuation ever changing even one quotation on Wikipedia. (There have been a few "it changes the quote if you also remove half the words," though.) In American English, the closing periods and commas are understood as part of the quotation process, just as "centre" is understood as being pronounced "sen-ter" rather than "sen-treh" in British spelling. Can you show me a time when American punctuation changed a quotation on Wikipedia? Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:26, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It changes the quote only in terms of punctuation. Jim said "I like frogs." No, he didn't, he said "I like frogs". It's a very minor point but because American punctuation makes no distinction between punctuation that existed in the original quote and punctuation that was added by the next writer, it makes it ambiguous and against the general principle of not changing quotes. Yes, in nearly all cases it won't change the meaning and it will be completely understandable but it's an unnecessary change to a quote nonetheless. McLerristarr | Mclay1 14:56, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This page abandoned any principle of not changing quotes the moment it recommended changing the punctuation inside them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:27, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But because the final period or comma is understood to be part of the quotation process and not part of the quoted content, it is not the quoted content that is changed. In all the times we've discussed this, no one has ever brought up even one instance of an actual problem, confusion or misquotation that could be attributed to the use of American punctuation. We shouldn't go banning things because of imaginary problems. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:20, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, when we speak of “American punctuation”, we should say North American punctuation, because Canadian practice follows that of the US. As for “the general principle” of not changing quotes, it’s application here is not a general principle in the US and Canada. JeffConrad (talk) 00:37, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked around a little and I've found one or two sources on Canadian English that preferred the British form. It seems that Canada can go either way, though I'd like to see a reputable print source on the subject. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:20, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Canadian Style. For the most part Canadian punctuation is similar to that in the US, though there are a few things that seem unique to Canada. Spelling is somewhat of a hybrid, but looks mainly British to me. JeffConrad (talk) 04:25, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are two types of quotation mark styles: traditional quoting and logical quoting. Neither one is "American rules" or "British rules". They are simply two different styles, both used in both places, it's just that one of them happens to be more common in America, and the other more common in Britain.

As far as why logical quoting should be used? There are any number of reasons:

1) Logical quoting has been used on Wikipedia since its inception.

2) Logical quoting is simply logical... it makes sense for quote marks to contain only that which is part of what is being quoted. It makes no sense to include in quotes punctuation that doesn't belong there.

3) Since the dawn of the computer age, especially with the arrival of command-prompt-based operating systems such as DOS, logical quoting has become accepted as common practice in America, and, although it wouldn't be entirely accurate to say that traditional quoting has quite fallen out of favour yet, it looks like it is set to in the very near future.

Reason #2 is really the only important, and the only necessary, reason to use logical quoting. It couldn't make more sense. If something belongs in the quote marks, put it there; if it doesn't, don't. If you actually did ride on something called a "bicycle,", then, by all means, include the comma with it. But I don't know what a "bicycle," is.-=( Alexis ^(talk)03:53, 13 July 2011 (UTC) )=-[reply]

The sources refer to them as "American" and "British." They might also have other names but yes, they really are American and British. Proponents of LQ might wish that I were making it up, but if I am, so are Chicago and these guys: [2] [3].

1) Just because a mistake is long-standing doesn't mean it shouldn't be corrected. I strongly suspect that the preference for British/LQ was present on early Wikipedia because its founders were disproportionately people with programming backgrounds as opposed to writing backgrounds.

2) In the absence of any actual effect, "This is more logical" is just another way of saying, "I personally prefer this more." It might be more logical to spell "caught" as "kot," but it's both wrong and sloppy. Using punctuation that is correct relative to its context makes Wikipedia look precise and professional.

3) Maybe it's become common practice among computer programmers but not in general-audience writing, and Wikipedia is a general-audience publication.

I would be extremely surprised if you or any of our readers didn't know what a "bicycle," however it was punctuated, is. The real logical way to write is the way that will be understood and appreciated by one's readers. British and American styles are about the same with respect to being understood, and people tend to appreciate the style with which they are more familiar. Darkfrog24 (talk) 11:16, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to Darkfrog24 "just because a mistake is long-standing doesn't mean it shouldn't be corrected", but it is not a mistake for a publication like Wikipedia to have its own manual of style which chooses among reasonable alternatives. So there is no mistake. Even if the conjecture that the founders were Americans with programming backgrounds who defied the style used by American professional writers is true, so what? It was their publication and they adopted a reasonable style. No consensus has formed to change the choice. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:14, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't like the serial comma, where either way can be considered correct so long as the piece is consistent—and, if you'll notice, the MoS permits both these forms; it doesn't ban one or the other for arbitrary reasons. Almost every single source on American English says that placing periods and commas inside closing quotation marks is correct and placing them outside is incorrect. To use a type of punctuation that is incorrect relative to its context, and to require others to do so, is not reasonable. It's a mistake. That's actually the most polite of many words for what it is. Using British/LQ in articles that are supposed to be in American English is like spelling "caught" k-o-t. Yes, it's logical. Yes, it can look cool or trendy in the eyes of certain beholders. It's also wrong. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:18, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling caught as "kot" makes no sense whatsoever to me since I pronounce "o" and "or" as different sounds but that's beside the point. Logical punctuation is not incorrect. It's only "incorrect" if a style guide recommends traditional punctuation but it's only "incorrect" for the sake of consistency rather than "correctness". However, to proponents of logical punctuation, traditional punctuation is incorrect for the constantly repeated reasons above. Our MoS has picked a system and for the sake of consistency we should stick to it. Besides, the MoS is only a guideline; it's not necessary to follow it. You can go around writing with illogical punctation if you want as long as you don't change punctuation that complies with this guideline. McLerristarr | Mclay1 10:56, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What you're saying about style guides is true, and the style guides all say that, in American English, placing periods and commas outside adjacent punctuation is incorrect. If the MoS does not require inter-article consistency for spelling or the serial comma, then why require it here?

You know what? We should do this RfC. Unless someone can provide at least a couple of examples of American punctuation causing miquotations or errors—or let's make it easier, problems of any non-imaginary kind—on Wikipedia, not "it looks like it would cause misquotations" or "gosh it really looks funny," but "here's the page history; it caused this problem," then it should no longer be banned. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:30, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:27, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You really are missing the point here: If the punctuation is not part of the quotation but is included inside the quotation marks, then it's a mis-quote. There are infinite examples of that. However, other than that minor punctuation difference, American punctuation does not cause errors. But it's not just quotes, it's the other things that quotation marks are used for, such as song names or just highlighting phrases. In those cases, including the punctuation inside the quotation marks is always wrong. McLerristarr | Mclay1 14:24, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not missing the point: It isn't a a misquotation. If there is over a hundred years of precedent that this is simply how the quotation process works, then tucked-in commas do not constitute a misquotation any more than, say, changing the font or placing the quoted material in another piece of writing does. Here's an example. Let's say that a book called Source Material includes the following sentence, which I wish to quote in an article.

Jean recited the poem "Awesome" for school.

Now, if I quote the whole sentence, the MoS and most style guides (American and British) allow me to change those double quotes to single, like this:

The book Source Material says, "Jean recited the poem 'Awesome' for school."

Gasp! But the source didn't use single quotes! It used double! Nevertheless, the people who read this quoted sentence 1. aren't going to misunderstand the source's meaning and 2. aren't being told that the source did use single quotes. When a quote-within-a-quote is made, single and double quotation marks alternate, and that's true in British and American forms. It is understood that there is a quotation process and that it involves moving punctuation marks around. If it is okay to actually change something that is literally within the quote, then why wouldn't it be okay to use periods and commas as part of the process that integrates the quoted material with the rest of the paragraph?

With song titles and nicknames, I don't know where you're getting "always wrong" from. Almost every American style guide says that commas and periods belong inside the quotation marks. So when one is writing in American English, including the punctuation marks inside the quotation marks is right. When one is writing in British English, then it is wrong. Also, when dealing with song titles and words-as-words, there is even less chance of misinterpretation than when quoting sources. Therefore, there is even less reason to use British styles on articles that are supposed to be in American English.

As for "just highlighting phrases," sources on both formal American and formal British styles agree that quotation marks should not be used for emphasis.

Oh, and a few years ago, I tried "not following" the MoS and used American punctuation on American English articles. I got brought up on AN/I for it. The MoS needs to be changed so that no one can be punished for using correct punctuation. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:26, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to sound like a dick here, but the notion that words that use re or er interchangably have different pronunciations is utter nonsense. First off, it doesn't matter which English-speaking country one is from, such words are always pronounced as their North American counterparts. The schools I've been to and the one I'm currently attending have had lots of American students pass through and each of them has had no trouble pronouncing the words in their British spelling. Likewise, words where the "ash" is retained (æ) or substituted for "e" don't change pronunciation, especially if you use a different English variant it's common knowledge that variations in spelling don't mean variations in pronunciation. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 4:55pm • 06:55, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's my point: that it's nonsense. The -tre spelling looks as though it would confuse people. Logically, it really should confuse people, but that does not actually happen. Similarly, even though some people feel that American punctuation would confuse people, that does not actually happen.

The point I was trying to make with the example was that British spelling only creates the illusion of being illogical, but we don't ban it. American punctuation only creates the illusion of being illogical, so we shouldn't ban it unless someone can prove that it's not an illusion—but linking us to a real problem that American punctuation has caused, such as an error. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:57, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone with more than an elementary grasp of the English language understands that it is illogical. As they say, "Live with it". What would be helpful is a routine mechanism for flagging which ENGVAR is first established in an article to prevent unnecessary squabbling.LeadSongDog come howl! 13:30, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We allow British spelling despite its lack of logic, because it works under actual use. We should do the same for American punctuation, because it works under actual use. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:07, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then what's your point, DF? Don't the current policies and guidelines relevant to English Variants already state, clearly, that whichever English variant was used at the time of the article's creation, should be the English variant to be used in subsequent edits to the article? Unless of course, the article's country of origin is different to the English variant used. Why start this RfC if this is already clearly stated? —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 2:34pm • 04:34, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, WP:ENGVAR does not state that it applies to punctuation. It says: "No variant is inherently more correct than another. Cultural clashes over vocabulary, spelling, and grammar can be avoided by using the following four guidelines. (The accepted style of punctuation is covered in the punctuation section, above.)" I changed the link so it will work on the talk page. It leads to a section that includes WP:LQ, which specifies "logical punctuation". And although the point has been disputed, several people including Darkfrog maintain that logical punctuation can be called British punctuation. That makes WP:LQ an explicit exception to WP:ENGVAR. Art LaPella (talk) 04:58, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that we should not be using British punctuation on articles that are ostensibly written in American English, or at the absolute least, we should allow people to use American English punctuation on those articles.

People say that American punctuation is illogical, but no one has pointed out any case of it causing even one non-hypothetical problem on Wikipedia. I'm using British spelling as an example of something that is also illogical but does not cause problems under actual use. I'm citing it as a precedent. Darkfrog24 (talk) 11:20, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, including the three non-regulars who've chimed in, no one has been able to supply any evidence that the rationale is justified. If no one has any objections, I'll remove it (but not LQ itself, separate issue) from the MoS and FAQ tomorrow. Darkfrog24 (talk) 11:11, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely oppose such a move, Darkfrog. See my oppose vote in the RFC below. Noetica^Tea? 14:02, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RFC: Rationale behind the ban and majority vs. sources

Rationale for MoS's ban of American punctuation (WP:LQ) may not be based on fact. Lift it? Implications for WP:Consensus.

Details: The Wikipedia Manual of Style currently requires British/logical-style punctuation on all articles, giving as its reason that this system is more in keeping with the principle of minimal change and less prone to misquotation, ambiguity and errors in subsequent editing. However, no one seems to be able to cite even one incident of American-style punctuation causing any misquotation, ambiguity, error, confusion, or other problem on Wikipedia. A significant minority of contributors to the MoS talk page want the ban lifted unless such problems can be shown to occur under actual use (rather than hypothetically). (NOTE: Despite the ban, American punctuation is used in Wikipedia articles, so the absence of errors is not due to the absence of American punctuation.)

Other concerns: British/logical punctuation is the personal preference of a clear majority of MoS contributors. However, American punctuation is required by the overwhelming majority of sources on how to write American English (style guides) and actually used by a less dramatic but still clear majority of sources written in American English. What are the implications for WP:Consensus when what most people want isn't what the sources say and do? What trumps what?

What we're talking about: British and American English punctuation systems differ in the way they treat periods and commas that are next to closing quotation marks in the cases of short-form works, words-as-words and certain other types of phrases: Bruce Springsteen, nicknamed "The Boss," wrote "American Skin."/Shakespeare, nicknamed "The Bard", wrote "Love's Labour Lost". More details can be found at Quotation mark#Punctuation. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:41, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And now for stuff that I didn't think was neutral enough for the RFC notice proper. Reasons to lift the ban:

• No one has cited any instance of American punctuation causing even one non-hypothetical problem on Wikipedia.
• This rule already has low compliance on Wikipedia. Of the about 92 featured articles linked to the front page since early April, about 11 have used American punctuation exclusively or predominantly and 20 have used a mix of British/logical and American.
• The overwhelming majority of American English style guides require American punctuation. We could literally save time by naming the ones that do not, and those are written for specialized types of writing, such as technical writing and computer programming. Most Wikipedia articles are neither.
• Using punctuation that is correct relative to its context makes Wikipedia look precise, credible and professional.
• We already allow actual changes to punctuation within quoted material for the sake of correctness: We change a source's double quotes to single when creating a quote-within a quote. (Jane said, "I like the play 'Othello.'") Like this, American punctuation is understood to be part of the quotation process.
• WP:ENGVAR is a proven policy. We wouldn't have to reinvent the wheel to allow both British and American systems. We also have a history of allowing the use and omission of the serial comma and both Oxford and non-Oxford British spelling within British articles. We wouldn't have to reinvent the wheel to allow American English articles to have two allowable systems either.
• British spelling is illogical, but we don't go banning that. It sure looks like "centre" would mislead people into thinking that the word is pronounced "sen-treh," but that alone isn't sufficient reason to insult British English writers by declaring their spelling system inferior and banning it.
• American punctuation makes for smoother and easier copy editing.
• American punctuation is easier to teach and learn.
• Banning American punctuation by claiming that it causes problems that it does not cause is insulting to trained American English writers.
• While the popularity of logical quotation might be reason enough to allow it on American English articles, it is not reason enough to ban the style that is already established as correct.
• If British/logical punctuation ever becomes standard in American English, we can always change the MoS then.

Okay, everyone. Let's remember that we're here because we all agree that correct punctuation is important to Wikipedia. Whatever else we may disagree on, we're together on that. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:43, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Question - @Darkfrog24: can you supply a link to the specific section of the MOS that discusses this ban of American style? --Noleander (talk) 03:46, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It doesn't use the word "American", but he means WP:LQ. Art LaPella (talk) 04:34, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • And I think that guidelines that aren't even used on the 3342 featured articles that editors use for bragging rights, then they surely aren't used on the 6,837,023 articles that readers use to educate themselves. Such guidelines are prime candidates for trimming, because if we trimmed enough, it might induce people to read the rest of our endless manual and its subpages. Art LaPella (talk) 04:45, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As much as I want this rule replaced, we should probably acknowledge that explanations of both American and British styles would take up more space, not less, than the current WP:LQ. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:29, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • DF, again you seem to reduce everything to this nationalistic thing. It's not "American" or "British" punctuation—there's a lot of crossover. And this is not ans American project. Tony (talk) 05:13, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here are sources referring to British and American punctuation and "British" and "American": [4] [5] [6] [7]. The second one has a quote from the Chicago Manual of Style 14th ed., which also refers to these systems as American and British. That should satisfy everyone that I am not inventing an imaginary national difference. If you know of any sources that prove that they are not British and American, please provide them.

We should not replace British punctuation with American. Then we'd still have the exact same problem except we'd be insulting and alienating British writers instead of American ones. We should allow both, as we already do with spelling. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:26, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose change to MOS quote guideline - Okay, I've read WP:LQ, and my opinion is that it is a valuable guideline. It is consistent with the goals of other MOS guidelines (promoting readability and uniformity) and it is rational. The MOS guideline adopts the "logical" convention for quote punctuation, which in my opinion is more readable than the other approaches. The fact that some articles do not adhere to the WP:LQ guideline is not relevant: "guidelines are sets of best practices that are supported by consensus. Editors should attempt to follow guidelines, though they are best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply" (from WP:Guidelines). The argument that "no one reads the MOS because there are too many rules" is not accurate: many editors, such as myself, perform "search" actions on specific keywords and successfully find the desired guideline. --Noleander (talk) 14:30, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not "many editors" compared to what it takes to maintain 6,837,023 articles. And even fewer editors know how to perform a keyword search that includes the Manual's subpages, not just the main page, and the need for subpages is a function of the number of rules. And performing a keyword search presupposes that you know somehow that there is a rule out there somewhere to be found. And if a new Wikipedian first encounters the Manual of Style and decides that its other-worldly expectations must have been written by people who never click "Random article", then he is unlikely to use ctrl-f to search it like scripture. Art LaPella (talk) 16:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, how do you feel about the idea that the MoS forces people to use punctuation that the majority of reliable sources say is wrong for pieces written in American English? Should the MoS be held to lower standards than regular articles? Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:05, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There must be twenty accepted style manuals in use throughout the English speaking world. When the WP community, by consensus, adopts one particular guideline on one particular rule (be it punctuation, or grammar, or formatting) that decision is bound to conflict with some of the accepted style manuals. It is also likely that WP MOS guidance will conflict with actual style usage in many writing domains. Such conflicts are no reason to avoid adopting guidelines within WP. The MOS supports the laudable goal of presenting a uniform reading experience to WP readers. --Noleander (talk) 16:15, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a case of twenty style guides that all say something different. Almost all of them, all the big ones except ACS, say LQ is wrong in American English. It's like writing "labour" in an article on American unions. You won't find American style guides that tell you to use that U. And why ban one style at all? We already accept both British and American spelling systems and both Oxford and non-Oxford spelling within British.

But back to the original question: Do you know of any problems, errors, misquotations, etc., that can be attributed to American English? You don't seem to believe that the ban should be lifted, but the reasons you give, personal aesthetic preference and the idea that Wikipedia can make its own rules, aren't the same as the ones listed in the MoS. What do you think about removing the rationale itself from the MoS and FAQ even if the ban stays in place? Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:38, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to removing supplementary rationale from the MOS. They important thing is that the MOS specify some standard, for the reader's sake. Every decent multi-author work, especially encyclopedias, forces their authors to adhere to one uniform style standard. It would be chaos to have every article with its own style. --Noleander (talk) 18:27, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not like other multiple-author works, though. A) We have no editorial board to enforce a standard. B) Anyone can edit (even anonymous IPs), so it's not limited to a small, selected group. And C) We already allow a variety of styles in differing articles; that's precisely what ENGVAR is about. This would be an extension (appropriate, in my mind) of ENGVAR to the style of punctuation. oknazevad (talk) 20:53, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:ENGVAR policy, correctly, permits articles to use country-specific vocabulary or spelling. It does not cover punctuation, formatting,or style (including quotation punctuation). Consistency in the formatting and style is what makes the WP articles uniform, and provides a pleasing experience for readers. --Noleander (talk) 13:27, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Differences in spelling and word choice already create far more visible variation than consistency, and the English language Wikipedia is no worse the wear for it; indeed, it's understood that such variation allows Wikipedia to reflect the real, natural variation in the English language. But my main point is there's more differences between the major varieties of English than just spelling and a few different words. The fact is LQ is, outside of a few specialist publications, utterly unused in American English. We should reflect that, and allow people to use the AmEng that is, not the one a few people want it to be. Wikipedia is not a place to push language reform. oknazevad (talk) 14:01, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But what makes vocabulary so different from spelling, Noleander, that it should be ignored? Look at it this way: If British punctuation is used throughout Wikipedia, then all the British English articles are correct and all the American English articles are incorrect. It is more important to be consistently correct than consistently tucked or untucked. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:36, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If I may be so bold to quote myself... Taken from archive 113, on a previous discussion on the matter:

As an observer who hasn’t thus far contributed much to this discussion, but who has followed it (and its numerous predecessors) carefully and learned much from it, I would like to offer this summation of the facts I see present here.

The MoS calls for the use of a style known as the logical punctuation of quotations, which has been called logical quotation or LQ for short. This system, as one of its main points, only includes terminating punctuation (commas, periods, etc.) inside the quotes if they were part of the original source material (and then only if it can be determined with certainty). This is in contrast with traditional quotation (aka typographical quotation or TQ), in which, with rare exceptions, "the comma comes before the quote [mark]", to use my 5th grade teacher's mnemonic.

While not universal in use, nor always rigorously applied, LQ is the far more common system used in Britain (and other Commonwealth countries). This has lead some, including respectable style guides, to characterize it as the British system or style.

This characterization is in part due to the marked contrast with US (and Canadian, as far as I can tell) usage, where, outside of some scientific and technical writings, LQ is exceedingly rare, while TQ is common, standard American English. This is a real distinction, one of the many that make American and British English distinct varieties of the language.

And therein lays the issue some have with the requirement of LQ. Its status as non-standard in American English makes it decidedly strange to even highly-educated Americans. It raises questions about the "anyone can edit" nature of Wikipedia. Other questions about the efficacy of the 2 systems compared to each other are also often bandied about, but are ultimately subordinate to the main question.

Those that support the LQ requirement believe that it's easy enough to learn, and aids Wikipedia's exactness enough that requiring it provides greater benefits than burdens.

That's why it keeps coming up as a topic of discussion, and why this part of the MoS is often ignored. And that's what makes it a problem that needs a solution. It's obvious from those factors that the status quo is insufficient.

I hope this covers enough that we can discuss the issue without resorting to ludicrous claims or talking past each other.

Which brings it to my view. I believe that American-style typographers quotes should be permitted, so long as the article is internally consistent. It's an ENGVAR thing; LQ is almost entirely unknown in American English, and if we truly respect the principles behind that so-well-respected-that it's-almost-policy guideline, both forms should be allowed so that the form of quotation that most naturally matches the other aspects of spelling and usage can be used. It's not as though quotations are a rarely used or largely misunderstood aspect of writing (unlike, say, dashes ;-) ). People should be allowed to write quotes in the form that is most correct for the version of English in use. For American English that it typographers' quotes. The only reason to ban it is a false consistency, which is ever the hobgoblin. oknazevad (talk) 06:39, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose – I would rather have one style, which is consistent throughout Wikipedia. Yes, we have two different styles for spelling and dating because there's no real reason why one should be used over the other. The reasons why logical punctuation is superior have been repeated countless times. However, if we do allow both systems, one thing that must always use logical punctuation is something like To add a non-breaking space, type " ". Putting the full stop in the quotation marks would be confusing. McLerristarr | Mclay1 14:24, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  The claims that LQ is inherently superior is disputed. No one has shown that it truly creates misquotations, unless one treats all quotations as merely character strings. That's not actual writing; that's data entry. oknazevad (talk) 20:53, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  If there is "any real reason why one should be used over the other," McLerristarr, then please provide proof of it. Tony suggested that the Americanness and Britishness of these styles was only in my imagination, so I provided sources supporting the fact that they are not. Do the same for the claim that LQ is inherently better—or at least better for Wikipedia—than American style. But let's make this fair. I've been through this before, so I knew where to look. Do you need a couple of days to find something?

  Side note: American style guides actually say to do as you have done for data strings; they simply acknowledge that such cases are rare in general-audience writing. I could go through a hundred Wikipedia articles and not find one key-entry instruction. Allowing American punctuation would not require " ." Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:32, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  “[T]here's no real reason why one should be used over the other”... Well, it depends on what you mean by real reason. Spelling cheque like this makes it clear that you don't mean any of the other meanings of check. Hell, I took several seconds to figure out what the title of the film Paycheck meant. :-) Also, what would be wrong with type  .? ― A. di M.​_plé​^dréachtaí 01:12, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If I were to write, “I’ll write you check,” would there be any question about what I meant? And I′m not quite sure I see how the distinction relates to quotation styles . . . The “real reason,” I suspect yet again, is personal preference. JeffConrad (talk) 02:25, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's actually a good example of what I mean by "real reason," A. di M. We permit "check" in American English because that is American English and "cheque" is not. We do this even though you have just given a real example of a time when "paycheck" caused some confusion. No one has ever given us a real example of American-style punctuation causing even one problem on Wikipedia. From what I can tell, it only causes errors and misquotations in people's imaginations.

There would be nothing wrong with putting commas outside the quotes when the quoted material is a data string. American punctuation explicitly permits it. However, such cases are very rare. If you go through a hundred articles, you might find one that requires this. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:12, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. There are lots of cases where a particular construction/spelling/whatever is theoretically better than another, but that's not a good reason to use it when it's unidiomatic in the variety of English we're writing in. Communication is a two-way process, and a distinction will only be understood when it's present in both the writer's and the reader's dialect. If I decided to spell nail as nale when I mean a metal spike rather than a body part, that wouldn't make my writing any clearer unless the reader somehow knew what I'm doing. Now, to a sizeable proportion of Americans (as well as a sizeable proportion of those who have been primed into reading American English), "this", John said doesn't communicate that the comma is not part of what John said–it communicates that the writer made a typo. ― A. di M.​_plé​^dréachtaí 09:57, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep logical punctuation  I was using logical punctuation before I knew it had a name, and I have American training.  IMO, accuracy in quoting the original material is more important than accurately following the American training.  Unscintillating (talk) 12:27, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So you've seen American punctuation cause inaccuracy? This is exactly what this particular RFC is about: If American punctuation is banned for causing inaccuracy, but opponents of the ban are saying that under general use it doesn't cause inaccuracy anywhere but in LQ proponents' imaginations. Do you remember exactly where it happened? If it was on Wikipedia, could you link us to the article history? Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:33, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So you refuse to stipulate that inaccuracy can exist?  How do you explain the existence of American style guides that call for logical punctuation? Unscintillating (talk) 23:13, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Inaccuracy can exist under any system. What I'm saying is that in all the times this rule has been challenged, no one has offered even one example of American punctuation causing any problem of any kind on Wikipedia. I'm not saying this couldn't possibly happen. I'm saying that if it's so rare that no one on this page has ever seen it, then it's not a big enough problem to be worth making, keeping or enforcing a rule against it, especially a rule that requires people to write incorrectly. I'm serious about those questions, though. If you've seen a non-hypothetical error that can be attributed to American punctuation, you should post a link to it here. It's 100% relevant to the issue.

All the American style guides that I know of that call for LQ cover specialized types of writing, such as computer programming or technical writing. Wikipedia is a general-audience publication. Do you remember the names of the style guides you're talking about? Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:00, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not really that interested in doing research, like I said, I prefer being accurate to the quotation more than I prefer being accurate to a style guide.  Regarding the question about style guides, your quote above says, "The overwhelming majority of reliable sources on American English actively prefer American punctuation for general writing"—which means you already have a list of the "underwhelming minority".  Unscintillating (talk) 02:08, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Using American style is accurate to the quotation. There is over a hundred years of practice that demonstrates this. Also, using American punctuation on AmE articles would make them accurate to both the quotations and the American English style guides.

As for your comment about lists, no, counting the majority doesn't also mean that I know which particular other style guide you've seen. Cards on the table: I wasn't before, but I am now asking you which style guides you're talking about, because you are now giving me the impression that you have never actually seen an American style guide that requires LQ. Look, if it's something you saw a couple of years ago and you don't remember exactly what it was called, then say that. There's nothing wrong with it.

Bottom line? It's one thing to use LQ yourself if you want to, but to make or support a rule forcing others to use it as well, you should be able to point to something other than your own personal preferences. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:38, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So you are saying that you might have been wrong when you implied that there was an "underwhelming minority" on 02:41 26 July 2011, and you might have been wrong when you said recently, "All the American style guides that I know of that call for LQ cover specialized types of writing, such as computer programming or technical writing"; because you didn't actually check your facts, and you don't actually know of any such guides?

Which do you think is better workmanship:

• Regarding the question about style guides, your quote above says, "The overwhelming majority of reliable sources on American English actively prefer American punctuation for general writing—" which means you already have a list of the "underwhelming minority."

• Regarding the question about style guides, your quote above says, "The overwhelming majority of reliable sources on American English actively prefer American punctuation for general writing..."—which means you already have a list of the "underwhelming minority..."

• Regarding the question about style guides, your quote above says, "The overwhelming majority of reliable sources on American English actively prefer American punctuation for general writing"—which means you already have a list of the "underwhelming minority".

Unscintillating (talk) 01:19, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, Unscintillating, that is not what I implied. You said, "How do you explain the existence of American style guides that call for logical punctuation?" and I asked you which style guides you've seen that do that. For example, you might have once worked for a programming company that had its own in-house style guide. That's something that would be likely to call for British punctuation and that I would not be likely to have seen. It's also possible that you saw a British or Canadian guide years ago and only thought it was American. But hey, I could be wrong. Your sources might be better than I think they are. There's only one way to find out and that's to ask you about them.

If you don't remember which guide it was, why don't you look at the list of style guides at the top of this discussion page and see if anything jogs your memory? If the guide you're talking about isn't on that list, maybe you should recommend it for addition.

Regarding workmanship, that is not strictly speaking "my quote." It includes you reacting to something I said, so it should be written like this: "You said, 'The overwhelming majority of reliable sources on American English actively prefer American punctuation for general writing' —which means you already have a list of the 'underwhelming minority.'" You will notice how the fact that I changed double quotes to single does not in any way alter the text or misquote either person. It, like American punctuation, is understood to be part of the quotation process.

Getting back on the core topic of this RFC, I think it's safe to say that you don't want to lift the ban. I don't think either one of us thinks you're going to change your mind about that. What do you think about removing the rationale? If no one can show that American punctuation causes errors or misquotation, then the MoS should not claim that it does, regardless of what else it may say. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:26, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In your new example, it seems you have moved the punctuation outside the first quote instead of following the basic rule for the internal punctuation.  Then by using the internal punctuation at the end, you've ended up with a combination single quote followed by a double quote, which is illegible on Wikipedia.  So in both cases, had we started with logical punctuation we wouldn't be left with questions to resolve.  As for my original question with three examples, I'll answer it myself, the first two attempts at internal style are truly "not logical", it shows that once you get past the tucking of a period or comma inside the quotes, that there is a new set of rules to learn.  So out of five examples (one set of three and one set of two), the logical punctuation was easier to use in every case, there weren't any ties.  As for your basic goal to turn this RfC into change at Wikipedia, I'd think you'd want to check the archives as to why this was originally decided, maybe the examples you seek are already there.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:34, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the oldest reference to this rule that I can find mentions some kind of compromise, trading the mostly-American preference for double quotation marks for the mostly-British preference for British punctuation. It has nothing to do with any hypothetical or practical superiority or inferiority, and it certainly isn't what the MoS states as the reason for the ban, and none of the ban's supporters have brought it up for quite some time.

As for examples of real errors on Wikipedia, I've been spending time on the talk page for about four years, I've seen this rule challenged many times, and no one has ever provided even one example of any non-hypothetical error or misquotation. There have been a few "Well it causes confusion if I also chop off half the words," but nothing solid. I haven't seen any in any of my archive searches either. What it seems to come down to is that most of the people who hang out on this talk page just don't like American punctuation. That's not a good enough reason to ban it, though, and it's certainly not right to claim that the real reason was something else.

The single quote followed by the double quote is pretty standard for quotations-within-quotations. Its readability depends on the font. Sometimes a space is useful, like so: "She said, 'Hopscotch.' "Darkfrog24 (talk) 05:24, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's {{'"}} for that: "She said, 'Hopscotch.'" ― A. di M.​_plé​^dréachtaí 10:07, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from an outsider

Having been invited by RfC to consider the debate here, as best as I can make out, the arguments revolve around:

1. a prominent lacuna about notions of audience;
2. consistency;
3. enforceability;
4. cultural chauvinism; and
5. desire for certainty.

If the English Wikipedia has a potential audience of anyone who can read and understand English, the likelihood is that grammar is a secondary considerations to the reliability of the information we present in the articles we edit. Jacob Lumbumbu in Kenya, Wong Chu in China, Gupta Singh in India, and Mehmet Riza in Turkey are probably blissfully unaware that this debate is going on at all, and wouldn’t care if they knew about it. Chances are, though, they learnt their English by studying British English.

As best as I can tell, if a single article adheres to a single style, we are already ahead of the game. To impose a single style on all articles would require a lengthy, very prescriptive manual of style, and continuous editing of all articles to keep pace with inevitable, progressive changes to the manual. If punctuation alters the meaning of a sentence, it becomes important. If it represents only personal preferences, comfort zones or chauvinisms, it is largely irrelevant, so long as a single style is maintained in a single article. Personally I have never yet objected to an editor coming in behind me to change my punctuation to accord with someone else’s assertion that an article has been designated as adopting American or British (or Venusian) English. So long as the meaning isn’t changed, and my name isn’t on a final product about grammar and punctuation, what do I care?

Enforcing any guideline as a rule at Wikipedia is like herding 50 cats towards anything. Good luck. It is, in fact so difficult that I think we are better off to involve ourselves only in disputes that count for something, like the veracity of sources, point of view debates, and malicious vandalism. Trying to make the manual of style more prescriptive has only one end: to make of it a weapon with which to beat someone else around the head. In my opinion the manual is already too prescriptive, and I’d hate to see it become more so. The original authors of the manual probably intended us to aspire to the most professional, exemplary standards we are capable of, which is a sliding scale across the vast numbers of editors here. The more prescriptive we become about form as opposed to content, the more elitist we become, and the fewer editors will actually stick around to be berated about punctuation. I propose that the last thing Wikipedia needs is more cops, and certainly not a new layer of punctuation cops.

The vast majority of English-speakers in the world are not American. India alone might have more English-speakers than the US. Even in nations where English is not a recognised national language, it nevertheless has currency as the pre-eminent international language. After 300 years of the overpowering effect of British and American money, arms, and culture on the entire world, not to know English is almost a disadvantage, like poverty or famine. To argue, contrary to Wikipedia’s stated universalist aspirations, that Wikipedia is exclusively by Americans for Americans is cultural chauvinism. The internet doesn’t recognise national boundaries, nor does knowledge. Once something is entirely beholden to a single nationality it becomes possible to perceive it as ideologically tainted, or propaganda. Already the Chinese, for example, have expressed misgivings about Wikipedia functioning as an instrument of ‘American imperialism’. Let’s not assist that argument by making it more easy to propose. I’m pretty sure that’s not what we aspire to. If there must be an argument about punctuation, let’s not make it one internal exclusively to the USA. In fact, if any debate within Wikipedia becomes exclusive to North America (sorry, Canucks), I, and many others like me, are gone.

As a sub-clause of the ‘Amerika’ argument, I hope it’s legitimate of me to assume that the founders of Wikipedia sought to leverage a clear technological and aspirational, idealistic US leadership in the world to give something to the world that isn’t proprietary.

Moving on, progressively sharpening the focus of the scope and prescriptiveness of a manual appears to me to be the quest for certainty, and the abdication of rational judgement specific to each and every concrete instance in which judgement is required. To do so risks stifling the content of Wikipedia articles for the sake of the form in which they are presented. In that sense the aspiration to develop a prescriptive, absolute set of rules governing punctuation approaches faith in the righteousness of a knowable cause. The idea that punctuation should be pursued with that kind of fervour strikes me as quaintly Oxbridge English and absurdly impractical.

It has already been said that we are not a professional or elitist organisation; we are all volunteers and we come from vastly different intellectual, educational and social backgrounds. Looking to the Wikipedia Manual of Style as a means of homogenising us seems not only misplaced, but also of such trifling importance when compared to getting the articles right that I am inclined to argue conservatively: let’s not make the manual any more prescriptive than it already is.

Regards, Peter S Strempel | Talk 02:20, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does that mean you consider allowing two punctuation styles to be more prescriptive than demanding only one? If not, then the proposal is to make the manual less prescriptive. I can't find the statistic usually quoted here, but I think it was about 45% of our readers are U.S. Art LaPella (talk) 03:35, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rereading the proposal, it doesn't come out and say logical punctuation in British articles, and U.S. punctuation (or whatever name is better) for American articles. But that's what he wants. Art LaPella (talk) 03:48, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

———

I’ll say yet again that despite all the ultimately unresolvable claims by proponents of either practice, it′s essentially a matter of personal preference. Though Tony may find a comma inside closing quotation marks jarring, most of us in North America do not. I personally find spaced en rules used for parenthetical a bit jarring, yet there is at least one editor who “hates em dashes” Personal preference, I guess.

I don’t see where Darkfrog24 has suggested that Wikipedia become exclusively North American. It would be nice to have one overall style for almost everything, but given the disparate makeup of WP readers and editors, I doubt we’d ever agree on much of anything. Especially spelling . . .

Though the rough breakout as “North American” vs. “British” practice is probably reasonable, it’s hardly absolute. The BBC web site uses “aesthetic” punctuation (and double quotation marks), for example. Of course, I’ll say as usual that with typewriter quotation marks, there isn’t any aesthetic. But that’s another topic for another time (probably many other times, actually).

As for the US/North American fraction of English speakers one could start with English language#Countries in order of total speakers and List of countries by English-speaking population. The trick is what to make of the data; for example, should Indians who speak English as a third language be treated the same as a native speaker from the US or the UK, or a non-English European who speaks it as a second language? If recent experience is any guide, I doubt we could discuss this in less than several gigabytes. And numbers alone don’t say a thing about punctuation practice. My impression has been that “aesthetic” punctuation is largely limited to North America, but I′ve never seen anything solid to back this up.

Finally, though I support allowing “NA”-style punctuation here, it’s far from my top priority, as I said earlier. But I don’t think Darkfrog24’s proposal is unreasonable. JeffConrad (talk) 08:27, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Art, Peter S. You make a lot of interesting points, but I'm a bit in the dark about whether you would prefer to lift the ban or leave it in place.

This is probably the third time I've said it in this conversation, but I don't want to ban British punctuation. That would be just as bad as our current ban on American punctuation. I want to allow both styles, preferably linked to ENGVAR. Taking a guess from the rest of Peter S.'s comments, I'd suppose that he might like allowing both styles but might not like linking them to ENGVAR.

As for international readers, considering that most of them will be reading English as a second language, I'd say that we owe it to them to make their reading experience as correct as possible. No, teaching English isn't Wikipedia's main purpose, but it doesn't hurt either.

Going back to the RFC: The rationale behind the ban is the belief that American punctuation causes errors that British/logical punctuation does not. Any thoughts on this, Peter S? Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:03, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear. You have me there, Holmes. My position is that we shouldn't ban anything as an absolute, but also that we shouldn't mess with the status quo. As a good conservative I should vote to do nothing. And yet my conscience says that we should also allow you to follow your own conscience. What am I to do? I'm with you, oh defiler of French delicacies. Overturn any ban on anything that isn't rational and clearly phrased. Regards, Peter S Strempel | Talk 20:55, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Defiler of—oh God, does my username mean something wretched in French?

Back on topic, as for the status quo, you should probably know that American punctuation does get used on Wikipedia. In fact, it's been the predominant style in between 1/9 and 1/10 of the front-page featured articles posted since early April. Overturning the ban would simply ensure that people can't get brought up on AN/I for using American punctuation (which has happened at least once that I know of). Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:45, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We can trade recipes for frog's legs later. In fact I might consider teaching a class about broiling or boiling the dismembered parts of your persona, but I suspect that even the French aren't gonna listen to what I have to say on that subject.

What I do have to say is that I agree with you if your ambit is to remove a ban on language. Peter S Strempel | Talk 22:10, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We have three options: 1. Leave the ban in place and continue to require British styles on all articles. 2. Lift the ban, creating two allowed styles (as with the serial comma). 3. Lift the ban and tie punctuation to ENGVAR (as we do with spelling).

The third one is what I personally believe would be best for Wikipedia, but I could live with the second one. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:11, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My hand is up to stop the ban (option two), and I'm sorry about culinary jokes at your expense. Peter S Strempel | Talk 10:05, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I’d lift the ban, allowing either style. JeffConrad (talk) 22:45, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd go with number 2 but “encouraging” number 3. (Note that we tie date formats with countries even though 31 July is far from unattested in AmE and so is July 31 in BrE. ― A. di M.​_plé​^dréachtaí 01:04, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

“[C]onsidering that most of them will be reading English as a second language”... I don't think so. 65.6% of readers are from North America or the British Isles or the Antipodes, so, even if some of them are Spanish/French/Irish/Welsh/Māori/... native speakers, my bet would be that more readers are NS than are NNS. ― A. di M.​_plé​^dréachtaí 01:04, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I meant most of the English-speaking readers from countries other than those traditionally thought of as English-speaking, India and China and the like.

PS, no need to apologize. I was only concerned because I thought it might not be an entirely culinary joke. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:12, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. [Comments below this post please, not within it. –Noetica] I oppose any revision of WP:MOS to recommend any alternative to logical punctuation (also called "logical quotation"). I also oppose removal of the rationale as currently given; but I do support a rewriting of the guideline to adjust certain details.

This RFC is not orderly

Having successfully "clerked" an RFC using a tight framework (on a subpage structure for the Manual of Style; see recent comments below), let me speak from my experience. The discussion above is ill-structured and very hard to follow. I believe this has contributed to its being relatively ignored by "locals". Another factor may be the distraction of the long-running dash saga coming to a climactic conclusion so recently. This is regrettable. Any change on logical punctuation would be at least as momentous as changes concerning dashes and hyphens; and there are nowhere near enough editors involved for that.

Standard sources have been ignored

The linguist R.L. Trask's Penguin Guide to Punctuation (1997) is a major source for logical punctuation, and the term itself appears to originate with him. This was all dealt with early last year. See archived discussion, including this section and several other sections in the same archive. Trask is mentioned. Am I now expected to adduce such a source again? Why has no one other than Oknozevad cited that archive in the present discussion? If there is such a thing as forum shopping, perhaps there is also "occasion" shopping. A lot of ground was covered last year; why are we not benefiting from it now, and building on it? Another source to consider closely (referred to by Trask) is ["Punctuation and Human Freedom"], by Geoff Pullum – co-editor of CGEL, the major transnational English grammar of our time. He is an avid supporter of logical punctuation, and does not find that a choice between logical and other systems enhances freedom. On the contrary, he opposes the high-handedness of copyeditors who would alter the quoted text, infringing the free speech of those they quote.

Stability, consistency, and the avoidance of wasteful conflict

We have just endured a long ordeal with dashes (of all things!), brought on by a bruising conflict over just two (2!) RMs concerning the Mexican–American War. One thing to emerge is this: most editors are happy with a firm and decisive Manual of Style. Most in fact endorsed the dash guidelines in voting, and while there was disagreement about details, only a small minority favoured an "open" approach on questions that were put to them. We have no reason to assume that the community would prefer choices to be made at every damn article, or want a watered-down manual that merely lists options and says "do what you like" – or worse and most time-wasting, "work it out among yourselves."

Some changes are needed

In fact, the present LQ guideline is remiss. It gets some details wrong, so that the practice it endorses is not found anywhere in general English publishing, British or otherwise. It does reflect reasonable practice for computer programming and the like; but Wikipedia articles are not written like that. When there is time, I would like to address these refinements. There is not time now; and it is a separate issue.

Noetica^Tea? 14:02, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Noetica, you've been very active on Wikipedia for a very long time. Do you recall any instances of American punctuation causing any non-hypothetical misquotations or errors in subsequent editing on Wikipedia? Even if happened a while ago and you only kind of remember, it would be 100% relevant.

Regarding the Penguin Guide to Punctuation: "The punctuation described here is the style which is currently the norm in Britain and the Commonwealth. Standard American usage differs in a few respects." [8] The Guide's section on quotation marks is explicitly not a source on American English usage.

This ban is in place solely because MoS regulars do not like American punctuation. The MoS should not claim otherwise and removing that claim would not reduce the MoS's ability to serve wikieditors in any way. Think about it: In what way does stating that American English is inferior help editors write Wikipedia articles? Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:43, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Darkfrog, there's an ownership problem here. It is not "American" punctuation. Internal punctuation is used by many newspapers, including the daily broadsheet I read, and websites that originate outside North America. Americans do not own it. Tony (talk) 15:20, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And I just saw a movie at a "Leowe's Theatre" and drove past a sign reading "Town Centre." That doesn't mean that the -tre spelling isn't British. It just means that a few Americans occasionally write the British way and I wouldn't be surprised if a few non-Americans use American spelling and punctuation now and then. Even Noetica's Trask refers to these practices as British, American, Canadian and South African. American punctuation is no more or less American than American spelling. The overwhelming majority of American English sources say that leaving periods and commas outside the quotation marks is wrong. We shouldn't force editors to do something that is wrong within its context.

Upon further reflection, I notice that the Penguin Guide to Punctuation doesn't claim that American punctuation causes errors. The author only states that he doesn't like putting commas inside quotation marks. If that's good enough for him, then why shouldn't it be good enough for the MoS? Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:40, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Tony: The same applies to the Mmmm DD date format, but still the MoS demands Mmmm DD in US-related topics (and DD Mmmm in UK-related ones). ― A. di M.​_plé​^dréachtaí 15:45, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Darkfrog:

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

No I don't. But:

• Famously, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
• I was never looking for such evidence on Wikipedia, or logging it.
• The same question about evidence could be asked about innumerable points of punctuation or usage; but it is not uniformly asked. Evidence is a Good Thing; selective insistence on it is not.
• Neither Google nor WP's internal search facility enables searching for such evidence. But COCA and its sibling industrial-strength corpora do. Selections from the huge number of hits for {end,"} (not the format one uses; and "end" is randomly chosen), in American English that does not use logical punctuation:

1. "In the end," he said, "we think Iraqis will see their lives improving ..."
2. "And in the end," Costas said, "something remarkable happened, the way it does ..."
3. "In the end," she says, "the seed of resistance must come from ..."
4. "But in the end," he says, "our moral obligations are what set us apart from ..."
5. "The end," I tell her, "was his leaving here to find his way ..."
6. "In the end," Greenberg wrote, "almost half the electorate threw up its hands, ..."
7. The postmodern novelist can not avoid "facing toward an unthinkable end," just as he can not prevent himself from "looking over his shoulder ..."
8. "In the end," Medak said, "we'll have about 40 percent more property ..."
9. "There was a little risk reduction at the front end," said Gleba, "and larger bets on later rounds."
10. "The age of the superpowers has come to an end," he said, "so military power does not translate to influence, ..."
11. "I got a little paranoid when I got to the end," Michael says, "because it was real narrow, and I thought ..."
12. "In the end," he says, "I won the day."

So Darkfrog, please show us the originals that are quoted in those twelve excerpts, solely from the report of the writer who does the quoting and without "correcting" the source to conform to some presumed standard. Then remind us why logical punctuation should be considered to have no intrinsic advantage.

Noetica^Tea? 23:30, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Simple, because, in order to be absolutely certain that nothing had been removed, I would have to look at the original source regardless of the style of punctuation used. "In the end", he says, "I won the day" might originally have been "In the end of things I won the day." British/LQ gives me no information that American punctuation does not.

The answer, then, to "How often does American punctuation cause problems on Wikipedia?" is "not enough for a diligent, punctuation-savvy editor to notice even once in all his years on Wikipedia." The next question is "Is this often enough to merit banning a system of punctuation considered correct by almost every single American English source?" My answer is "No." A problem that no one has ever seen is more likely to be an imaginary problem than a real one. But if you want a source for that, here's one: The Chicago Manual of Style 14th edition states, "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." If there's anyone who does go around looking for instances in which a given punctuation system or other causes trouble, it's probably them. Here's a web site that quotes this passage: [9]

Considering the rationale itself. You have your reasons, Noetica, for wanting to keep the ban on American punctuation, but we can see here that "it causes non-hypothetical errors and misquotation" isn't one of them. In your case—and probably in everyone else's as well—that's not why the ban is here. Why should the MoS or its FAQ claim otherwise? Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:48, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Darkfrog: Er, no! That's a fundamental misunderstanding. With logical punctuation the case you use would go like this:

In the end I won the day.
"In the end", he says, "I won the day."

In the end, I won the day.
"In the end," he says, "I won the day."

But "American" usage would give this for both originals:

"In the end," he says, "I won the day."

See?

So I do retain this among my reasons for preferring that MOS recommend logical punctuation exclusively: "it causes non-hypothetical errors and misquotation." And let me assure you: neither long-established habit nor national practice is among those reasons. Neither applies in my case. Can you say the same, for your own preferred guideline in MOS?

Finally, do not expect me to be impressed by CMOS's stated rationales – especially when the edition you quote is twice superseded. CMOS has its idiosyncrasies and habitual loyalties. (It is in fact an excellent case study in American insularity; but that's another story, and I never rely on that in assessing its deliverances.) The situation in CMOS16 is no better, and it still flounders on some core issues. But I use it! I have to.

Noetica^Tea? 00:23, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Both your examples of B/LQ could be omitting material. The first could have been "In the end of all things, I won the day" and the second could have been "In the end, despite my doubts, I won the day." Again, both styles are reasonably good but neither one provides absolute certainty.

I freely admit that I prefer the style in which I was trained and to which I am more used, but you will notice that I'm not trying to ban the other style. I have used British style in Wikipedia articles that were written in British English.

If it causes non-hypothetical errors under actual use, then show me one.

The sixteenth edition might not include this same passage, but it does not contain one that contradicts it. As a source for Wikipedia, it stands. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:22, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This RFC is pointless, since there is no such thing as "American punctuation". Some American publications use logical quotation. Some British and otherwise non-American publications use typesetters' quotation. It's not a WP:ENGVAR issue, it's an encyclopedic precision versus sloppy journalistic/fiction writers' style issue, and that debate was settled years ago in a clear manner. No facts have changed. Per WP:CONSENSUS, rehashing old topics that settle again and again on the same consensus in hopes that you'll get lucky and finally get your way because of who happens to be participating in the debate this time around, does not magically mean that consensus is going to change, it's simply "asking the other parent" or "forum shopping" and is a tiresome form of tendentious, drawn out canvassing. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 04:52, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Just because someone can find a source somewhere calling these styles "American" and "British" doesn't mean these are accurate terms. I can find sources that say that Bigfoot is real and that astrology works. In various previous versions of the debate, we've shown for a fact that typesetters' style is used outside the US and logical style used inside it. I know this, since I dug up plenty of that myself. This perpetual soapboxing attempt at causing Americans like me to boil up a crap-storm of controversy about "prejudice" against "American" this or "favo[u]ritism" show to "British" that is basically just a bunch of trolling geared toward disrupting the MoS. MoS is a guideline. This means it steers people. This means not every single person will be happy with everything in it. Otherwise we wouldn't ever have to steer anyone, since we'd all be robots and all going in the same direction automatically. Of all the things to pick at, this is the least productive one to choose because it has nothing at all to do with national/cultural interests, at all, period (full stop). As has been explained again and again and again ad nauseam, it is only and entirely about accuracy. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 05:01, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't claim to understand all the history etc., but comparing style manuals including the Chicago Manual of Style to "Bigfoot is real" does create a credibility problem. Art LaPella (talk) 07:10, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SMC, I live in the U.S. and I saw a movie in a "theatre" and drove past a sign that said "town centre." That doesn't mean that British spelling isnt' real.

Here's a thought. You don't believe the sources I provided that refer to British and American styles as British and American. I imagine that you think it's like the "French" in "French kiss." Well, there are many more sources that claim that Bigfoot is a myth than those that claim Bigfoot is real. Show us some sources indicating that the "British" and "American" tags are inaccurate. This is Wikipedia. We're supposed to value sources and logical arguments over sheer numbers.

Again, if banning American punctuation is about accuracy, then show me one non-hypothetical example of it causing any inaccuracy on Wikipedia. This is about taste, not accuracy, and that's not a good enough reason to force people to use punctuation that is incorrect relative to its context. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:19, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Summing up the take

So let's see if I have this: People who are explicitly in favor of removing the rationale, independently of LQ: Is it just myself and Noleander? People explicitly in favor of keeping the rationale: Is it just Noetica? Evidence presented showing that the rationale is justified: None. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:44, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unclear on the question. Are you proposing to remove "It is used here because it is deemed by Wikipedia consensus to be more in keeping with the principle of minimal change"? Dicklyon (talk) 04:18, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just realized all this debate is about Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/FAQ, which is read less than once a day! Whoever gives in first gets a Golden Attaboy. Art LaPella (talk) 05:14, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, is that it? And in this whole PFC, nobody linked it or referred to it explicitly? No wonder I'm confused. I nominate that page for deletion. Dicklyon (talk) 05:23, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Art LaPella: That FAQ is transcluded into the stuff at the top of this talk page (though hidden behind a [show] button), so there might be people reading it without accessing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/FAQ directly. ― A. di M.​_plé​^dréachtaí 10:45, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that we should replace WP:LQ with a rule expressly permitting both British/logical and American styles, but yes, Dicklyon, I am talking about removing those very words from the MoS and from the FAQ. The FAQ itself is referred to about three times.

"Golden Attaboy"? I don't understand. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:26, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A better definition. But I was unaware of what A. di M.'s comment just above. Art LaPella (talk) 17:20, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's what I thought the term meant. I still don't understand what you mean.

For anyone who doesn't want to re-read the RFC the premise is this: 1. The MoS bans American punctuation because it is believed to cause errors and problems. 2. No one can recall even one instance of American punctuation causing errors or problems. 3. So we should remove the ban. 4. If we retain the ban for any other reason (such as its popularity), then we should remove the claim that errors are the reason for the ban. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:14, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Golden Attaboy comment was based on a premise that turned out to be false, after A. di M.'s explanation. Are you asking me to explain why I would say that, even if I believed that premise to be true? Art LaPella (talk) 23:54, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was only mildly curious. If you don't want to, then never mind it. Any comments on removing the rationale? Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:59, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, OK. "The FAQ is referred to about three times" on this page, some unlinked, and all except the banners are soon to be archived; is that what you meant? When I looked at the top of this page, I found the direct link before I found "show", so maybe 2 people per day see the offending rationale. About 200 per day see this talk page, and about 1500 see the main MoS page. Let's not miss the forest for the trees.

Is it a "misquotation" if you don't know whether the comma was part of the real quote or not, and might even re-quote it with the punctuation changed? (Examples are easy to create: The newspaper said "never", and I believe it. Did the newspaper actually say "never," or "never", and how often would it matter?) Well, that isn't how I would use the word "misquotation", and dictionaries don't clarify that semantic point. But the FAQ says only that misquotation is some people's opinion, and some disagree. That seems true enough, so maybe I haven't followed your objection closely enough. Art LaPella (talk) 21:23, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The rationale is also in the MoS itself, as part of WP:LQ, or at least the claim that American punctuation has anything to do with the principle of minimal change.

I believe that the rationale promotes two falsehoods 1. that American punctuation causes errors under actual use and 2. that actual errors or even the belief in such errors is the reason why the ban of American punctuation is here. I dug back into the archive and it seems that the original reason was a compromise between British and American English: using American-ish double quotation marks instead of single but British punctuation rules with periods and commas. From the past few discussions, I've gathered that the current reason is just widespread personal preference for British style. Either way, the rationale isn't the truth. If I had to guess, I'd say that the rationale is part of a revisionist agenda devised to foster what its proponents consider to be improvements in the English language. Think about it: Why would we provide a rationale for WP:LQ when we don't for most of the MoS? Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:23, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So the text people are 750 times more likely to load (and maybe 100 times more likely to actually read) is "minimal change". Does "minimal change" promote two falsehoods?

1. sounds wrong; LQ does indeed create "minimal change" because it doesn't change the comma. It can't be blamed for people reading claims into those two words that aren't there. Do you mean a definition of "errors" that makes American punctuation an error just because it isn't British, or do you mean an almost equally meaningless "error" of representing a quote as "never," when he didn't actually write the comma?

Does 2. mean they preferred British style just because it's British? Although I was taught American punctuation, British punctuation seems simpler to me, perhaps because I do a lot of computer programming, which will malfunction or fail to compile without careful punctuation. Quote it all, without exceptions for the punctuation. So to me it's credible that their preference for British punctuation would be based on "minimal change", in addition to the compromise you described.

"revisionist agenda": Yes, wanting "minimal change" in an American article instead of American punctuation can be called revisionist. That is a good reason to remove the entire WP:LQ guideline, but not to remove "minimal change" as the reason.

"Why would we provide a rationale ...?" Certainly not because WP:LQ is the only part of the MoS we argue about! It is one of the most noticed parts of the MoS because it isn't on a subpage, not because it's the only part that's wrong. We don't provide rationales for my oft-cited contradiction list either, even though one side of each contradiction has to be wrong. Septentrionalis has often called for rationales for everything, and to my knowledge, he or anyone else is welcome to provide them; that's why we have the abandoned Register. Art LaPella (talk) 01:58, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think they like British/LQ just because it's British. I think they like it because it appeals to their sense of logic and because it's trendy. Now liking the new way isn't bad, but it's not a good enough reason to ban the old way. It's more logical to write "center" than "centre," but it certainly wouldn't be right, fair or even necessary to ban British spelling.

The revisionist agenda that I'm talking about is the idea that people are trying to replace American punctuation with British/LQ in the English language by pushing rules like this one on Wikipedia, rather than allowing any such change to happen on its own. This goes back to the idea that the MoS should reflect English as it is rather than English as people think it will be or English as people wish it were.

Sorry, but I think your sarcasm is clouding your point in that last paragraph. It looks like you're saying that while it is odd that WP:LQ has a rationale and other parts of the MoS don't, the answer is to add rationales elsewhere rather than take it away from WP:LQ. Is that right? Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:12, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think any of your points are intended to refute my conclusion that there's nothing wrong with the rationale. So I suppose we have switched to discussing whether the entire guideline should be removed. I don't oppose that. I generally avoid advocating specific style issues; I have no easy access to style manuals, and Wikipedia has much more style debate than it is worth.

One meaning of "sarcasm" is that the intended meaning is the opposite of the literal meaning. I didn't find that in my paragraph. Concerning other meanings of "sarcasm", academics occasionally take offense when I say something too obvious. But if they don't like something like "You owe me another dollar in change", would they prefer me to make a calculus problem out of it?

"add rationales elsewhere rather than take it away from WP:LQ" Yes, that is what I meant. But on reflection, I have confused the consensus for rationales in the Register and the FAQ, with rationales in the MoS itself. However, I couldn't confirm that "WP:LQ has a rationale and other parts of the MoS don't". Search the MoS for these phrases: "Cultural clashes", "Modern editions", "Generally, the more", "This practice of", "which may clutter", "To prevent apostrophes", and "They are easier". I would call each of those phrases "rationales", and there are many more because I stopped looking when I got down to WP:LQ (about 40% of the way down). Art LaPella (talk) 22:27, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Except that the same page that insists on "minimal change" here also supports repunctuating quotations to the style preferred by some obscure vote or other, and therefore this page is inconsistent. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:47, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, we should not mark WP:MOSQUOTE "disputed" just because someone pops up every few months and recycles an argument already covered by the FAQ. MoS has been remarkably stable on this matter for almost a decade. We use logical quotation because it is logical and reduces misquoting and ambiguities, and also prevents falsification of titles, innumerable broken links, subtle POV pushing, etc., etc., etc. The only reason to not use it is pure subjective aesthetics ("I think it looks better"). Aesthetics that pretty much everyone in the world except most but not all Americans and a minority of non-Americans don't find appealing to begin with. And I'm an American, so this isn't some pro-British position. Logical quotation isn't British anyway, it's just not particularly American, though it is preferred by many, and a growing number of, American technical/science publications. The whole "American vs British" business is a total red herring. Logical quotation is not any more difficult to proofread, either, but actually much easier, since it eliminates innumerable errors of over-inclusion automatically. Typesetter's quotation style doesn't really "make sense" in any context at all, but it is usually harmless in fiction and in journalistic writing, where precision is usually of minimal importance. But, WP:NOT. QED. Please move on and don't re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-rehash this same old long-settled topic. The equine corpse has been beaten all the way down to the earth's core already. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 04:40, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, we use logical quotation because a few people made a compromise years ago and a few more people have managed to stomp on any attempt to balance the MoS. If it really does reduce the misquotation rate, then show us at least one example of American punctuation causing a misquotation. This is a matter of taste, not accuracy.

We require ordinary articles to have sources. If we held the MoS to the same standard, WP:LQ would have been replaced long ago. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:12, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why, despite the landslide consensus at the latest RfC about that, pages such as Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters) haven't been moved to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters yet? ― A. di M.​_plé​^dréachtaí 04:14, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Two good answers for you to choose from:

1. Because you haven't done it yet. ☺
2. Because it is a good idea to work out how to do it best, and to take the opportunity to check for consistency and other desiderata as pages are brought one by one into the fold. But no one has shown the slightest interest in taking up that suggestion of mine.

Yes, there was a landslide consensus. It showed how a well-structured and orderly RFC could yield a clear outcome that can be "memorialised" (to use Greg's term), to implement when the time is right. Of course you must feel free to take things further: but preferably not in the undocumented way in which a random few have been moved recently.

Noetica^Tea? 07:10, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well... Stage 1 was moving all the existing /Subpages (other than redirects) which wouldn't fit in the proposed scheme to somewhere else. Anyway, most of those pages are historical, so I wouldn't worry too much about them. ― A. di M.​_plé​^dréachtaí 12:46, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So you think the implementation needs no more discussion? I think it needs a lot. The "legacy" and miscellaneous subpages need to go somewhere rationally considered; and they do need to be out of the way so that searches in the relevant namespace (or with the relevant "prefix") will yield only guidelines. Similarly for contents of talkpages. To be revisited later, when people are ready to focus on it. The consensus will still be there.

Noetica^Tea? 21:57, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So the agreement is that notional MoS subpages should be moved to actual Mos subpages, i.e. take titles of the form Wikipedia:Manual of Style/XXX? But before we do that, we have to move all those pages which are currently of that form to some other place? That doesn't sound too difficult - anyone want to express any preference as to what that "other place" should be?--Kotniski (talk) 12:01, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The ones which are actually polls to the Wikipedia talk namespace (e.g. WT:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Whatever), and if there's a meta-discussion currently in that place I'd move it to WT:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Whatever/discussion. Historical non-discussion pages (e.g. drafts) I'd move to WP:Manual of Style/historical/Whatever. (We could introduce a convention whereby subpages containing extra guidance start will eventually with a capital letter (WP:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers, WP:Manual of Style/Abbreviations etc.) and those used for housekeeping purposes with a small letter (WP:Manual of Style/register, WP:Manual of Style/reviews instead of the current WP:Manual of Style/Reviews etc.); what do you guys think about this? ― A. di M.​_plé​^dréachtaí 13:13, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, though it might be better to find a solution whereby only guideline subpages have the form WP:MOS/XXX, i.e. the housekeeping pages are given some other form of title (rather than merely being distinguished by the case of the first letter). Simply WP:Manual of Style reviews and so on might work.--Kotniski (talk) 13:24, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that would be OK. ― A. di M.​_plé​^dréachtaí 18:22, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, having thought about this, and in the spirit of my proposal above that we should write our page titles in something resembling English rather than in some software-imposed syntax, I don't like the whole slash idea after all. Slashes generally mean "or" in the real world; they don't introduce a subtopic. And since we've already got one subtopic marker in the title already (the colon after "Wikipedia"), why not carry on be consistent and carry on using the colon in that function: "Wikipedia: Manual of Style: Whatever subtopic". All right, ithis doesn't look a huge lot like English either, but at least the structure is more transparent. And it's even possible to make the "Wikipedia: Manual of Style: " bit display in smaller type, if we want to place more emphasis on what is logically the actual title of the page.--Kotniski (talk) 10:20, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And with that, we come full circle, since "Wikipedia: Manual of Style (whatever subtopic)" already served this goal quite well, and the vast majority of such pages are already named in this format. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 05:08, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems WP:DIACRITICS and MOS:FOREIGN plow nearly the same ground but slightly vary with each other. Would there be a way to harmonize and/or consolidate the two? --Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 17:16, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's also the section, "Use English" (abbreviated WP:UE.)--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 17:23, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DIACRITICS is part of the page WP:Naming conventions (use English), which as I keep mentioning at that page, has no particular reason to be a naming conventions (article titles) page, as the principles it expounds - insofar as they accurately reflect our practice, which in the case of diacritics they don't very much - are not specific to article titles. I would rename that page something like WP:Manual of Style/English and foreign terms, rewrite it so it no longer seems just to be about article titles (and so that it more accurately reflects our actual practices, which is a separate issue), and make the MOS:FOREIGN section a summary of it. But the inevitable problem with going that is that the Use English page is vigorously defended and cultivated by a few editors who don't like either (a) diacritics; or (b) the MoS.--Kotniski (talk) 17:27, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

“A few editors” is quite an understatement when the latest RfC to change it had 47 opposes. ― A. di M.​_plé​^dréachtaí 18:32, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am pleased with and hopeful about the shape of things to come as far as foreign names are concerned. Admittedly, although the RfC has its problems to properly define and insulate those terms that have an overwhelming historical usage, it enjoyed the support of a tad over half the community; to me, it shows that despite the existence of some rednecks in our community, the world around us is changing towards adopting greater sensitivity and sustainability as universal values. What we can build on is our international editor-base, and the support of the current WP tolerance of diacritic by a number of important projects that are based on or are otherwise strongly influenced by subjects with diacrictics. I'm all for rewriting along the lines that Kotniski is suggesting, as we must not forget that our mission is to educate as well as inform our readership. However, I suspect that such a move may be strongly resisted as a back-door attempt to continue the creep of the scope of diacritics unless terms like 'Munich' that have enjoyed and still enjoy significant usage are ring-fenced. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:35, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As for educating people, OhC, this MoS has its problems but it also has one huge advantage over other style guides: We can include links to articles on these subjects. IMHO, the entire MoS should be in the imperative; it should tell people what to do and sometimes how to do it. We can afford to put all of the educational stuff, even stuff that would be included in a print style guide, in linked articles. For example, WP:LQ has a link to quotation mark. The big bonus is that placing educational material outside of the MoS is a good way to avoid instruction creep. It's literally not part of the instructions. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:10, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may have misunderstood (so might I, come to that): I think it is being suggested that we should use the MoS to document a style (i.e. retain most diacritics) that helps make Wikipedia more educational; not that we should make the MoS itself more educational.--Kotniski (talk) 10:11, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see how an article starting with “México (also Mexico in English) is” would be any more “educational” than one starting with “Mexico (Spanish: México) is” (it's not like anyone wants to remove the México throughout altogether); if anything, the former is misleading as to which way normal people refer to that country when writing in English. If being “educational” were a desideratum of titles as well as of articles themselves, we'd have to move Bill Gates to William Henry "Bill" Gates III and Gulliver's Travels to... well, look it up. (And water to hydrogen oxide while we're at it.) ― A. di M.​_plé​^dréachtaí 21:32, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, "Mexico" is the sort of case which is definitely an exception from the "use diacritics" principle (there's an undoubtedly established English form). I don't think it's being proposed we adopt any new principle in this regard, just that we document our existing practice, which is to tend strongly towards the use of diacriticked forms, even where most other reliable sources tend not to use them. But rather than open this debate again here, perhaps we could concentrate on the original question - why have an MoS section and a naming conventions pages covering the same ground?--Kotniski (talk) 12:18, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the Mexico case is pretty much the same as the Vienna vs. Wien case. The fact that diacritics are involved at all is entirely incidental. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 05:10, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The template {{times}} is now available, to display a typographically correct 'times' character (× in HTML); for example 4{{times}}100m relay renders as 4×100m relay. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:12, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What's the point? It's two keystrokes more than the HTML entity. :-) ― A. di M.​_plé​^dréachtaí 22:37, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, it's faster to just type × 76.113.124.50 (talk) 04:54, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the same. I've put it up for deletion. JIMp _talk·cont 05:48, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The point is improved readability for novice editors and others not familiar with HTML. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:13, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Novice editors are more likely to have encountered × than {{times}} before. And using the × character directly would be even more readable, for that matter. ― A. di M.​_plé​^dréachtaí 11:20, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, editors who learn what × is all about could apply that knowledge in certain off-wiki contexts, while {{times}} would be useless off-wiki. Jc3s5h (talk) 11:22, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The × character is available with no more than three mouse clicks (typically just one) by means of the toolbox below the Save page/Show preview/Show changes buttons, as explained at WP:VPT#'Times' character. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:16, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not all of our editors do - or can - use a mouse. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:13, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So what? Those who can't, can use ×; how is {{times}} any better? ― A. di M.​_plé​^dréachtaí 12:19, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cite? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:13, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they might have encountered × before (or at least some other entity) in HTML, whereas they could have encountered {{times}} before... AFAIK, nowhere else. ― A. di M.​_plé​^dréachtaí 12:19, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On further thought, such a template would be more useful if it included non-breaking spaces before and after the times sign. A shorter name would be even better, but {{x}} is taken (and it's a pity that such a simple name is used for something with a very limited scope). ― A. di M.​_plé​^dréachtaí 20:15, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As per the comment in WP:ENGVAR about using universal words instead of local variants, I'm certain someone, somewhere, sometime has created a table listing bad regional words (eg 'Gas' & 'Petrol') and their corresponding good universal word (eg. 'Fuel'). Does anyone know where such a table lives, and once identified, can we link it from ENGVAR? Manning (talk) 05:15, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS, my selection of "gas/petrol/fuel" as an example was completely arbitrary and not intended to be definitive. In other words, I am not attempting to start a debate on those particular words, or any other words. Just looking for the table, if one exists. Manning (talk) 05:24, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fuel is a more general term than petrol or gasoline. JIMp _talk·cont 05:55, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the time, the word "fuel" is not a useful substitute for "petrol" or "gasoline". This is because "fuel" may also refer to coal, uranium fuel rods, diesel, kerosine, heavy fuel oil, or liquified natural gas.--Toddy1 (talk) 14:56, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why the article is at gasoline (as much as that just looks wrong to me :). Jenks24 (talk) 10:57, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly, 'power' is a more universal term for the quantity than unit-derived terms like 'wattage' or 'horsepower'. Lightmouse (talk) 13:24, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But how power is measured will affect the number. Depending on date, you would expect ihp to be several times greater than nhp, and would expect shp to be slightly less than ihp. The shp of an electric motor will be a lot less than the electric power consumed by the motor.--Toddy1 (talk) 15:02, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. Units of power vary. Lightmouse (talk) 15:06, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:CAPTION doesn't make it clear, but when I encounter images captioned like "A picture of a railway train at Oxford in the year 2011", am I justified in removing the words "A picture of" and "the year", leaving "A railway train at Oxford in 2011"? If so, perhaps the MOS page should give examples of phrases to avoid. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:23, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"A picture of" sounds redundant but I don't know of an official guideline for it. For "the year", see WP:YEAR: "Avoid inserting the words the year before the digits (1995, not the year 1995), unless the meaning would otherwise be unclear." There is also WP:ERA: "He did not become king until the year 55." Art LaPella (talk) 21:17, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Following on from some of the previous threads here (such as #Current state of affairs above), can we reach some kind of conclusion as to what form this page is intended to take? In relation to any particular area of style guidance, is it supposed to contain (a) everything; (b) the most important things; (c) only pointers to the subpage where the information can be found? And if the answer is different for different areas, then on what basis do we decide which is which? To me it makes no sense to have, for example, punctuation expounded here in full detail; capitalization given in almost full detail even though there's a subpage for it; most topics expounded in semi-detail; some topics for which we have subpages not mentioned here at all; and the MOSNUM topics presented as general waffle without specifics. Can we at least decide what we'e aiming at? --Kotniski (talk) 09:31, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we could decide based on length. I looked at each category of MOS subpages (listed on right side of main MOS). I excluded the category "Wikipedia content" and I ignored subcategories. Within each category I threw a die to choose one of the MOS subpages, and found its length as listed in the page history. I found a maximum of 50 kB, a minimum of 6 kB, an average of 24 kB, and a standard deviation of 14 kB. Of course everyone would agree the larger pages are far above the threshold for a separate page. As a rough attempt at discerning where the threshold is, I found the point that is one standard deviation below the average, or 10 kB.

So I suggest any section that exceeds 10 kB should be turned into a separate MOS subpage. Jc3s5h (talk) 10:40, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All right, let's assume we did something along those lines - then having made the subpage, what should be left on the main page? Just a pointer to that subpage, or some of the highlights from it as well?--Kotniski (talk) 11:02, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd go with “some highlights”, but they should be neither 60% of the size of the subpage nor so vague as to be useless. For example, the current sections on currencies and links in WP:MOS are OK, IMO. (Given that the one about links is relevant to pretty much any articles, I'd be OK with expanding the latter by a factor of 2 or 3 to give more detail, too.) ― A. di M.​_plé​^dréachtaí 11:14, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This page should be either your (a) or (b), Kotniski. It should contain all the rules that we should expect most editors to follow most of the time. The common punctuation and capitalization rules should be here, and only specialized material relevant to a small subset of articles should be pushed onto subpages.

Expecting wikieditors to read five and six and seven subpages just to see how to write a basic article is unrealistic. Darkfrog24 (talk) 11:42, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would tend to agree with you there. How's about replacing the contents with Tony's abridged version? --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 11:49, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kotniski raises an excellent point. We need to know when to stop and when to trim overgrowth. Guidance adds value when it:

• documents the outcome of a dispute that may reoccur with significant effect
• defines how to fix a common and significant problem that wouldn't be fixed by the wiki
• make a difference to what editors actually do

I think Tony's abridged version retains the meat without the fat and it's easier to read. Lightmouse (talk) 12:06, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tony's beginner's manual is in places so terse that the meaning is unclear. It seems understandable to many of us, but that's only because we've already read the full version. I find that most of the examples et al. in the current MoS will be useful and necessary to ordinary Wikieditors (rather than style enthusiasts like us). Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:40, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You don't seem to be arguing against the beauty of it being only a summary, only that it's too brief in parts. But to me, it fits the bill of what you wanted (above), and even if we didn't adopt it as is, it could form a good base for such future document. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 14:50, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not arguing against it because I'm not sure what you're talking about. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:13, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Darkfrog24. Tony's summary is OK as a cheatsheet for people who have read the full text before, but it's too terse for complete newcomers, who in the WP:Summary style scheme are the ones more likely to read the main page as opposed to the subpages. Reduction in size for the introductory page should be accomplished by omitting rarely relevant subtleties (the way WP:MOS#Currencies does), not by not writing full sentences. Disclaimer: I wrote the first version of the summary in WP:MOS#Currencies. ― A. di M.​_plé​^dréachtaí 22:50, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I get the impression that we generally agree that some sort of summary style (including the most important style points) is what we're aiming at, but possibly with certain topics being dealt with in full on this page. That being the case, would we all agree in particular that the current sections on Numbers, Chronological items and Units of measurement are not what we want - they should be giving us some answers, not just telling us what sort of questions we can find answered at MOSNUM?--Kotniski (talk) 06:54, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, they look like they would be relevant to a great many articles, probably most of them. Right now, though, they're so vague and skimpy that they're hardly any good. What's the point of saying "This section says how to use a.m. and p.m." if we don't actually say it? I'll do a quick fix of chronological items for now, but what we really should do is just copypaste all or most of that beautifully formatted content from MOSNUM. It belongs here where users can find it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 11:59, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One part of the simple formula I used in creating the brief version was to render examples without explanatory text where they make the point themselves. Perhaps a few need to be opened up again, but I find many lead statements in the current MoS are unnecessary. While there's nothing technically wrong with having a large MoS main, as now, it's obviously preferable to attract more editors by making it as short as possible. Tony (talk) 00:25, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

“[w]hat we really should do is just copypaste all or most of that beautifully formatted content from MOSNUM”... huh, if we did the same with MOSCAPS, MOSLINK etc. the main MOS page would become unmanageably large. (Also, it would defeat the purpose of having subpages in the first place.) Giving the most typical case of rules those rules which apply to most articles and referring to the subpage for details, exceptional cases and unusual situations would make more sense. What about this? ― A. di M.​_plé​^dréachtaí 00:46, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Answer: I don't think we should have subpages. I'd put the whole thing here in one place, but I can settle for putting rules that would apply to most Wikiarticles in one place and putting rare things elsewhere. Question: What about a large MoS would make it unmanageable?

Keeping typical rules in the MoS and referring to subpages for exceptional cases does make sense, but the current sections on chronological items and numbers don't do that. They only hint at what sorts of things may be found on the subpage. They're so short but it would waste less space if they were long enough to do their job. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:43, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the entire MOS with all its subpages would be about one and a half megabyte, which would be a big problem for users of slow connections. (When this talk page was half a meg, my browser failed to download it completely about half the times.) However, as I've already said, I wouldn't be opposed to have a WP:Manual of Style/full transcluding all of the subpages, for users who'd find that more comfortable. (And I agree that the current WP:MOS#Numbers etc. are useless.) ― A. di M.​_plé​^dréachtaí 14:06, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have reinstated a lot of the text that I originally used in teh Chronological Item section. The first reason was the removal of instruction creep - instructions that appeared in MOSNUM were being replicated in MOS. The second was grammatical - the list was introduced by an incomplete sentence - each bullet point complted the sentence in a different way. Martinvl (talk) 14:22, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus in the above thread seems to be that (some of) the instructions should be duplicated between MOSNUM and here.--Kotniski (talk) 15:21, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In my rewording, I added a comment about about all-numeric dates. Although this does not explicitly give an instruction, it does so implicitly. Comments? Martinvl (talk) 16:40, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The current version of chronological items is so skimpy that it's useless. There is no point in saying "We have rules about 12- and 24-hour clocks" unless we state what those rules are. We should place that content in the MoS itself where the users can see it. My personal preference would be to take the content from MOSNUM, which is beautifully written, and place it in the main MoS and scrap MOSNUM as redundant. The only content, if any, not given in the main MoS should be content that is relevant only to a small subset of articles—guidance on Gregorian vs. Julian calendars would fall in this category.

I would have zero objection to rules that were both clear and in parallel construction, but I don't feel that it's entirely necessary.

One more thing: This wasn't a case of instruction creep. Instruction creep is when new rules are added or existing rules become stricter. This was a case of making existing rules easier to find. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:59, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per the general view, I've restored the section (now named "Dates and time") to a form which contains the most needed information. Please improve further (and it would be great if someone could do the same with the numbers section and the others).--Kotniski (talk) 16:25, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The style guide suggests to use a blockquote with quotes of more than four lines. Yet the example itself fails this criteria. This ought to be changed. If you have a favourite quote you want to use, please use it. Jason Quinn (talk) 15:07, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it should say "more than four lines in a window [of specified width]". Is there a standard way of specifying window width (by pixels, by inches, by centimeters, by point size)? (The word criteria is plural, and the word criterion is singular.)

—Wavelength (talk) 15:53, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wavelength's suggestion is very well taken. With typical users' monitor screens now ranging from tablet-computer size to (at least) 27", "four lines" of text isn't a meaningful guideline. Another aspect of the guideline should also be clarified: does "four lines" refer to how long the quote would be on an unindented line, or how long it would be when indented as a block quotation? The style guides I'm familiar with use the former criterion (if they address the matter at all), but some other guides may use the latter. --Jackftwist (talk) 17:22, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I notice in the MoS navbox at the top, and in the categorization system, there are two categories "Content" and "Wikipedia content" of which the latter seems to be a subset of the former. Is this deliberate?--Kotniski (talk) 15:32, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here and here are the change. I can't explain it. Maybe Gnevin can. Art LaPella (talk) 20:33, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MOSNUM currently advises against the use of the word "currently" on grounds that the rest of the statement might soon cease to be true. This is not always the case - one might write "It is currently raining in London" - this will almost certainly have changed before the article where it appears has been read. On the other hand, one might write "Iceland is currently being pulled apart by geological forces at the rate of one centimetre per year". This statement will probably remain true long after Wikipedia has ceased to exist, as will the statement "At the start of the millenium". However statements such as "At the start of the year" should be avoided - how many Wikipedia editors have been registerd for more than a year? How about "At the start of the decade"? Now that is a tricky one and that is where I am addressing my suggestion.

May I suggest that MOS specifies that editors should write assuming that articles will have a life of twenty years - thus expressions that implicitly reference the current time such as "currently" or "since the start of the millenium" should only be used if in twenty years time their meaning will be unchanged.

Comment? Martinvl (talk) 19:08, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Twenty years is imho a bit short. I would like to believe that what we create here will be available to our great-grandchildren a century from now. The statement about Iceland would be vastly improved by simply deleting "currently" - the present continious tense of the statement doesn't need embellishment. (I first wrote "further embellishment" but realised that was also superflous.) Roger (talk) 19:35, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably "currently" was included on the grounds that the engine of continental drift is unknown; the Mid-Atlantic Rift might, for all we know, turn off, or accelerate, in twenty years. But writing for a century is recommended somewhere in policy, which this page is not. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:53, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If an external link can have the comment "accessed [YYYY-MM-DD]", then maybe a textual passage can have the comment "confirmed [YYYY-MM-DD]".

—Wavelength (talk) 20:03, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The designers of the IBM PC apparently thought their product, the operating system, and the software would be consigned to the dustbin of history within 18 years, 142 days. Their error was a significant contributing cause to the Year 2000 problem. Jc3s5h (talk) 20:11, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"confirmed YYYY-MM-DD" sounds like {{Asof}}, which the WP:DATED guideline already recommends. Art LaPella (talk) 20:42, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd go with “several years, possibly decades” rather than any specific time span. (I've come to dislike stuff like “at the start of the century/millennium” because I have to guess when it's not immediately obvious whether the author was writing before or after the end of AD 2000; even if this doesn't apply to Wikipedia, I still prefer stuff such as “as of the [early|mid|late] 2000s|early 21st century”.) ― A. di M.​_plé​^dréachtaí 22:37, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "statements such as 'At the start of the year [decade, century, millineum, etc.]' should be avoided" — isn't this guideline unnecessarily restrictive? I.e., if what year the article/author is referring to would be intuitively obvious or clear to the typical user from the context, what possible confusion could ever arise (either next year or a millenium in the future)? E.g., consider: "In May 2011 U.S. stock market indexes began to fall, even though at the start of the year they had been rallying steadily from their lows in the late summer of 2010." Is there any reasonably conceivable potential for confusion about the start of which year the sentence is referring to? Similar examples could be constructed for any benchmark in time: month, decade, etc., provided the context is clear and unambiguous. By contrast, a statement such as "at the start of the decade," without a clear context, should indeed be not just avoided, but banished. --Jackftwist (talk) 23:08, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WT:CITE#Which Wikipedia guideline(s) should establish citation format? Jc3s5h (talk) 16:57, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't see any contradiction between what's said at MOSNUM and what's said at WP:CITE. Do you think there's some inconsistency? MOSNUM seems to be more detailed, that's all.--Kotniski (talk) 17:08, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I made an error in the location of the RfC due to an article redirect with the name "Citing sources". I will copy your question there and answer there. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:45, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does Lead section do anything useful? Tony (talk) 10:58, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think I added it during recent reconstruction, since leads didn't seem to be mentioned (or were mentioned rather opaquely) before. At the moment all the section does (apart from, most importantly, link to the relevant MoS subpage) is explain what a lead section is and that an article should have one; perhaps it could be expanded to say something more specific.--Kotniski (talk) 16:38, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your good work, but why not remove it and add a ref in "See also". Or better still, that box top-left that lists the MoS subpages could be expanded at the top level? BTW, why isn't MOSNUM at the top level: it is a crucial subpage. Tony (talk) 03:36, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by "expanded at the top level"? And about the lead, maybe there doesn't need to be a separate section on it, but we should make it clear (maybe in the "section organization" section) that an article should have a lead, with an explicit "Main" link to the MoS subpage on that toipc.--Kotniski (talk) 10:08, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The situation I constantly run into is the case where the lead contains unique information that does not appear in the body. Given that the style guide says the lead "serves both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of its most important aspects", placing unique facts in the lead seems to contradict this policy. Yet this does not appear to be clearly spelled out anywhere. Regards, RJH (talk) 17:49, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is this edit supported by the Manual of Style?
—Wavelength (talk) 17:30, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[I am revising the heading of this section.
—Wavelength (talk) 17:32, 14 August 2011 (UTC)][reply]

?< and ?= aren't described here. But if it's unhyphenating "well-known for", "well-known by", and "well-known as", but not "the well-known", that sounds consistent with WP:HYPHEN's goal of hyphenating when it isn't a predicate adjective (since its "well-meaning" and "well-behaved" exceptions don't apply to "known".) I can't think of a "well known by", "well known by", or "well-known as" sentence that doesn't use the phrase as a predicate adjective. So is that what ?< and ?= mean? Excluding "the well-known" seems unnecessary, because you wouldn't say "the well-known for" etc. Art LaPella (talk) 18:16, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hyphenation is minority usage in such forms. I just searched the quotations in the OED, and maybe 10–15% are hyphenated (yup: 10/80 = 12.5% 'well-known as', 6/38 = 15.8% 'well-known for', 2/37 = 5.4% 'well-known by', Σ = 11.6%, in full text; in quotes only, 6/67, 6/30, 2/34 = 10.7%). But predicate adjectives are often hyphenated. As the Ahdi Book of Style, 3rd ed., puts it,

Do hyphenate compound modifiers that occur elsewhere in the sentence [than before a noun] if they continue to function as modifying compounds. This almost always occurs when the compound modifier follows a linking verb and functions as a predicate adjective ...

• the patient is good-natured and soft-spoken
• the forceps were bone-biting
• I found the patient to be panic-stricken
• I work part-time
• this commitment will be long-term

— kwami (talk) 23:06, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(For anyone who doesn't know, Kwami's source is referring to the rule that says we should hyphenate before the noun but not after: "a well-known candidate," but "the candidate was not well-known."Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:09, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you meant "not well known". Anyway, I was answering a question about the Manual of Style; please change the Manual if it's wrong. Art LaPella (talk) 00:01, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to open a discussion about an incorrect practice.

This page currently says: "For the possessive of singular nouns ending with just one s (sounded as /s/ or /z/), there are three practices..."

Now it may well be that there are three practices, but that does not mean that any given one of them is correct. Taking the attitude that anything that's done is correct makes this page redundant! I'd like to propose that the Wikipedia Style Guide defers to sources like Strunk & White's "Elements of Style" and Fowler's "Dictionary of Modern English Usage" both of which state that (with a very small number of exceptions, sych as "Jesus" and "Moses") the correct form is simply to add an apostrophe and an S, regardless of what letter the owner's name ends with.

Not only is the lazy and ignorant habit of omitting the S when the owner's name ends with S technically incorrect, it is also illogical and inconsistent with other rules and conventions. For example, the rationale that adding apostrophe-S is "too sibilant" collapses when you look at examples like "wax" (which has a sibilant end) - would you put "The wax' colour..."? No, of course not! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.238.31 (talk) 08:59, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I vaguely remember the last conversation that we had about this. It was a while ago. I seem to recall that it wasn't a case of style guides saying one thing and people making two kinds of mistakes. There was inconsistency among the style guides.

The Wikipedia MoS should not compel all users to use just one style when others are equally good, formal, correct and accepted. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:55, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New comment: Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 108#Recent changes to the "Possessives" section, and especially the four questions posed by Noetica.

—Wavelength (talk) 15:32, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[I am revising my message of 15:32, 15 August 2011 (UTC).

—Wavelength (talk) 16:34, 15 August 2011 (UTC)][reply]

New message: I am reproducing hereunder a portion of Noetica’s message from that archived discussion.

Suppose an editor comes to MOS wondering how to manage the four possessives in this sentence:

Sentence A. These are Doris'[s] copies of Morris'[s] books on Socrates'[s] and Descartes'[s] philosophies.

(Rewording would just be an evasion, and is to be thought unavailable.)

Question 1: What forms should MOS recommend for the whole of Sentence A?

Question 2: Why?

Question 3: How well and how clearly does the unmodified guideline settle things for the editor? (Explain in detail.)

Question 4: How well and how clearly does the guideline with modifications settle things for the editor? (Explain in detail.)

—Wavelength (talk) 16:54, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MOS should shut the [bleep] up, for once. This is a matter of taste and experience, which will differ between literate writers of English, partly on national grounds. For what it is worth, I would use Socrates' and perhaps Descartes', and terminal ses with the other two, but I like spelling as I speak; others don't have to. Therefore we should not "recommend forms," at all.

The claim about laziness and ignorance by the original poster is itself evidence of one of our besetting flaws; the OP does it one way, so everybody has to. It is above average that he has actually found a couple of sources. It may be that the only useful function this page can perform is to correct such errors.

While I look at it, our examples are flawed: Descartes and Illinois can both take the apostrophe without s; and Illinois's largest employer should not be encouraged. The largest employer in Illinois avoids arch personification. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:46, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This entire debate so tiresome. Just settle on "always use apostrophe-s" and move on. Sheesh. 100% consistency, the end, please drive through. Folks, the MOS must be authoritarian or it serves no purpose at all. We cannot keep pandering to every preference as "valid". No, you are not "special", either. It doesn't matter what rule we make about anything, it will be a rule, and it will thus upset some subset of literate and quasi-literate humanity on every single point, guaranteed, by definition. Too bad, so sad. Welcome to real life, which is a giant exercise in compromise from before birth to after death. I am now going to go do something terribly shocking! I'm actually going to...edit an article. I mean the content in it. Like, to add new material, with reliable sources. You all should try that again from time to time. I've spent far too much time at WT:MOS and so has everyone else here rehashing the same blather. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 05:22, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Someone's losing it! :) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:27, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

100% consistency is not necessary on Wikipedia. It is better to acknowledge that there is more than one correct style.

If you're sick of this issue, SMC, then you don't have to participate. You could just watch or even sit it out entirely. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:24, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New message: (¶1 of 7) I acknowledge from your contributions that you are relatively new as a contributor to this talk page. Although some veterans of this talk page are tired of many discussions about this issue, a skillful teacher does not tire of discussing an old topic again, with a new set of learners. Past experience can even sharpen a teacher's insight into explaining matters. Also, a skillful student does not tire of learning new things. Every skillful teacher is also a skillful learner, and every skillful encyclopedia editor is both a skillful teacher and a skillful learner.

(¶2 of 7) When I write English, I use a bare apostrophe after a noun of more than one syllable (Boris'), and I use 's after a word of only one syllable (Gus's). (This is in agreement with rules which I remember reading somewhere many years ago, but I have not found a supporting guide since that time, in spite of several attempts.) Correspondingly, I pronounce a possessive of the first type as having the same number of syllables as the non-possessive form, and I pronounce a possessive of the second type as having one more syllable than the non-possessive form. (Names such as Charles [which might be considered by some people to have one syllable and by other people to have two syllables] are few enough to be relatively easy to manage.) That is my personal practice (for material such as personal e-mail messages), but I am prepared to follow a different practice for instructors, employers, customers, and Wikipedia.

(¶3 of 7) Here are my answers to Noetica's four questions.

• Answer 1: These are Doris' copies of Morris' books on Socrates' and Descartes' philosophies.
• Answer 2: I recommend this version because of Noetica's assertion that "the third option is recommended as by far the most commonly used". However, counting syllables is easier than assuming pronunciation, so I recommend that the third option be revised to state:

• Add 's or just an apostrophe according to the number of syllables in the non-possessive form: Socrates' wife; Moses' ascent of Sinai; Jesus' last words (and similarly for most classical and biblical forms), and Doris' opinion; and James's house and Gus's horse.

Also, I recommend that this option be the only procedure on all articles throughout English Wikipedia. (I recommend that examples of geographical names be included, to show that the same rule applies to them: the Ganges' banks; the Indus' tributaries.)

• Answer 3: The unmodified guideline hinders matters for the editor, in two ways.

(1) It relies on the assumed pronunciation for some possessive forms, and different assumptions might be made by different editors or by one editor at different times.

(2) It requires that the editor examine an article to find what possessive form(s) (if any) the article already uses.

• Answer 4: The modified guideline also hinders matters for the editor, in the same two ways.

(¶4 of 7) Here is another extract from (in this instance, a subsection of) the archived discussion to which I provided a link in my message of 15:32, 15 August 2011 (UTC).

The following are given names: Andrea (English female), Andreas (German male), Carlo (Italian male), Carlos (Spanish male), George (English male), Georges (French male). Therefore, the following statements are ambiguous.

• These are both Andreas' books.
• These are both Carlos' books.
• These are both Georges' books.

The English language has many surnames formed by the simple addition of s to a male given name, for example, Andrews, Edwards, Peters, and Williams. Therefore, the following statements are ambiguous.

• These are both Andrews' books.
• These are both Edwards' books.
• These are both Peters' books.
• These are both Williams' books.

(¶5 of 7) One of the benefits of a manual of style is the recommendation of one of a number of (sometimes equally) correct ways of deciding a question of style. This does not (in itself) invalidate the usage(s) not favored, but it promotes consistency where the manual is applied. (See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 118#Acknowledgement and validation.) To appreciate this concept of disfavoring an option while not necessarily invalidating it, one is advised to suppress any contrary influence from polarized dramas publicized by the popular media.

(¶6 of 7) Different countries differ in regard to right- and left-hand traffic, but neither option is invalidated in itself. Also, people migrating to or visiting countries of different standards can adapt to the different standards. In each country, one option is chosen for consistency because consistency promotes efficiency.

(¶7 of 7) For me, consistency throughout all the articles of English Wikipedia is more efficient and easier to manage than consistency between English Wikipedia and my training or experience or preference. Incidentally, I prefer the abandonment of WP:ENGVAR and the adoption of spelling practice similar to what is described at User:Angr/Unified English Spelling. (See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 118#Guidelines which have consensus.) However, I accept reluctantly the status quo of the Manual of Style in regard to what are called "national variations", and I am not challenging the status quo in that regard (at this time, at least).

—Wavelength (talk) 20:07, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Easier to manage?!? Why are you attempting to "manage" it at all?

We are not consistent on this point; we have no reason to try to be (and given our size, little prospect of success in the endeavor); we do have reason not to (as you reluctantly admit, it's partly an Anglo-American difference). Leave well enough alone, and go find something useful to do. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:34, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Although it looks awkward, the constant application of ['s] does make English a little less confusing. That's one less exception we have to remember, or expect future generations to remember. I'm all for changes that bring consistency to English, because that's something our language desperately needs. On the other hand, I am guilty of continuing to drop the [s] from words / names that end with an [s] sound. I'm still trying to make sense of how this would impact pronunciation. It probably doesn't even matter, since most English speakers just glide right through the more verbose combinations of phonemes without stressing the individual sounds. 70.153.112.90 (talk) 18:06, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's the point of the present text: you don't have to remember it. Do what is natural for you, and let others do likewise; be consistent within an article. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:34, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is an RFC on the addition of identifier links to citations by bots. Please comment. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:06, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To inflect words such as among and while so that they become amongst and whilst is grammatically erroneous, because these inflections are entirely excrescent, occurring without any grammatical justification. People who are learning English on a secondary basis are often confused by the appearance of these inflections, and are left with the impression that both forms of these words have individual context.

This is very different from, say, editors applying spelling differences between various dialects of English. (e.g., color, colour; realise, realize; jewelry, jewellery; et al.) These differences are precedented by intentional attempts at reformation — amongst and whilst are not.

It should be noted that the preposition against is also a victim of this error. Against is possibly a special exception, due to a lack of any other form of usage in Modern English. (if we want to be completely technical, we should possibly be using the archaic form againes) Amid[-st] and mid[-st] are less clear, because while they are very widely acceptable in Modern English, amid is also preferred by some people.

My proposition is that amongst / whilst should be regarded as misspellings, and therefore changed to among / while to avoid confusion; or perhaps further corruption of English in general. Wikipedia is accessed by millions of users. In some respect, we are influencing the grammar of our readers. I think we should try to set a precedent that will aid our readers in developing a better grasp on English. It's going to be difficult to do that when we inject so many excrescent word-forms into articles. 70.153.112.90 (talk) 17:52, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I figured those must just be British; but if the Brits are just as happy with among and while, then we should adopt those, per MOS:COMMONALITY. So who is "protecting", and have you pointed out that guideline to them? Dicklyon (talk) 17:59, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many people figure this is a dialectal difference at first, but these forms occur across many different dialects of English. It seems to boil down to being a bad habit.

I don't want to go around stepping on other editors' toes, though. I'm pretty sure that, should I go about removing the [-st] when I see it, said editors will get on my case. We aren't allowed to "correct" one another when it comes to mere differences in spelling / dialect. I'm hoping we can at least agree on what constitutes a dialect versus an outright misunderstanding of something like inflection. 70.153.112.90 (talk) 18:12, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia article "Inflection" begins with this paragraph.

In grammar, inflection or inflexion is the modification of a word to express different grammatical categories such as tense, grammatical mood, grammatical voice, aspect, person, number, gender and case. Conjugation is the inflection of verbs; declension is the inflection of nouns, adjectives and pronouns.

—Wavelength (talk) 18:48, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst and amongst are perfectly good (British) English words. It's not a matter of inflection. They are not misspellings. They are not a bad habit. So if you "corrected" them with a comment of that nature, people would probably be justified in feeling that their toes had been stepped on. However, I agree with preferring while and among, on the basis of WP:Commonality. In some British dialects, there may still be a difference between while (until) and whilst (during the time when)), but that need not concern us. --Boson (talk) 20:34, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My impression is that they are now archaizing, even in Britain; but I see no need to roust them out. It is likely that they will be gradually amended to "until" and "during", which are also perfectly good British words, but if this does not happen, so be it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:38, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I could see allowing users to replace "amongst" and "whilst" as per WP:Commonality, but to ban them would be too much. The original poster mentions people who read English as a subsequent language. I assert that those people are best served by a Wikipedia that shows English as it is, not as it might be, used to be, or (in a few people's minds) ought to be. If "whilst" and "amongst" are acceptable but becoming rarer in British English, then that's what they should be in British Wikipedia articles. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:45, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]