Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 16:06, 4 August 2009 editSswonk (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Pending changes reviewers7,495 edits →Punctuation: Quotation marks: Inside or outside: format new section message← Previous edit		Revision as of 16:38, 4 August 2009 edit undoJimp (talk \| contribs)Pending changes reviewers64,660 edits →Punctuation: Quotation marks: Inside or outside: If it's an archive (and so it should be), then archive it.Next edit →
Line 9:		Line 9:
	{{Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Archive Box}}		{{Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Archive Box}}
	{{clearright}}		{{clearright}}

	== Punctuation: Quotation marks: Inside or outside ==

	'''Newcomers, if you wish to discuss quotation marks, please start a .'''

	{{Archive top}}

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

	] (]) 01:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

	:There was an inaccuracy in the above; caught between editing another editor's comment, and leaving an inaccuracy in an introductory paragraph for the section (I do like the idea of having such a paragraph, assuming everyone can agree on its phrasing), I tried to clarify the relationship between the paragraph and its original author by simply placing a paragraph break before the signature — perhaps there is a better way to mark the distinction?
	:The inaccuracy was the representation that logical and British never differ in practice; in fact, they ''rarely'' differ in practice. If there is dispute over the point, then the paragraph needs to be either revised to acknowledge or sidestep the disagreement (so long as it remains unresolved), or the paragraph should be struck out. Universal permission is really required for this, otherwise it isn't cricket to retroactively insert stuff at the top of the section. ] (]) 14:52, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
	::I am fine with "rarely." ] (]) 16:08, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
	:British quotation also differs from logical quotation in that when a quotation is integrated into an author's sentence, the period is placed outside the quotation mark, even if the period belonged to the original quotation. This applies even if the quoted material is a complete sentence (''MHRA Style Guide'' 2008, 43).
	::*The British man said 'The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog'.
	::*The logician said "The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog." As did the American.
	:In British English however, if the integrated quotation is separated by a punctuation mark, then the endpoint is placed logically.
	::*The British man said, 'The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog.'
	::*The British man said: 'The quick brown fox', shrewdly enough, 'jumps over the lazy dog.'
	:Sometimes the British and American styles concur, where presumably the logical style could differ. If a partial quotation is followed by a parenthetical citation, the end point would follow the parenthetical reference, even if it belonged to the original quotation.
	::*The American could not bare to tell his British friend that a truck had struck his 'lazy dog' (''The Guardian'' 2009, A1).
	:Best, ] (]) 19:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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

	For example, see ''Quotation Marks: Teaching the Basics'' by Susan Collins, ''The McGraw-Hill Handbook of English Grammar'' by Mark Lester, or ''The Associated Press guide to Punctuation'' by René J. Cappon. Better still, pick up any old book from your local library. Have you glanced at the featured articles on Misplaced Pages? Have you seen which style they have adopted? Best, ] (]) 07:23, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
	:I'm American, and generally prefer American usage. Some Britishisms absolutely make me itch — ''whilst'', ''aluminium'', ''dice'' used as singular. But on this one I'm with the Brits. In this case they just happen to be right. Quotation marks enclose that which is being quoted; if the thing you're quoting doesn't have the punctuation mark, then it shouldn't be there. --] (]) 07:29, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
	::The funny part is ''I agree with you''. It has always made logical sense to me to adopt the British style. But here's the rub, ''it's not up you or me to decide these things!'' There is a long history of precedent, and grammatical rules have already been put in place. They are being taught in schools, enforced in our universities, and are adopted by almost every English speaking scholar, editor, and publishing house. If Misplaced Pages is a tool of education -- which we are lead to believe -- then we do a disservice to this aim by advocating a convention that will be rejected by most learned institutions. There are practical reasons for keeping grammer and punctuation universal. But it seems that this group wants to play by their own rules. ] (]) 07:50, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
	:::Some irony: those same style guides would tell you that em-dashes used in that manner should be close-set and not spaced around (and you didn't type an em-dash anyway but two hyphens). You say "...keeping grammer and punctuation universal" and don't care that spelling should also be universal. So is agreement between number ("this group" is singular, "they" is plural). So you take and choose which rules you carefully follow with documented precedent, and which you don't care about or follow. Everyone is the same way, with different peeves and blind spots. ] (]) 16:25, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

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

	:::As your original post admits, the punctuation style employed here (sometimes called the ]) is the one common in British English. On the other hand, we use the double quotation marks of American English. There is no perfect solution. This is the one we've adopted. One could make a sensible argument for saying that each editor uses the style that's considered academically correct in his or her home country, but that would produce jarring changes of style within a single article (sometimes within a single sentence). See ]. At one point that section or some other MoS provision characterized our approach as splitting the difference between AE and BE usage. We also have rules about the spelling differences between different versions of English. Sometimes "neighbour" is correct and sometimes "neighbor" is correct. ]<small> ] ]</small> 08:11, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

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

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

	Reading the bit about pissing the teachers off it occurred to me that these teachers really haven't that right. If teachers want students to use the US style, surely they'd have to teach it since by no means does it follow logically that something not part of the quote belongs within. If students pick up what they see here and copy it, that'll show the teachers that there's a gap to be filled and give them the opportunity to reinforce the crazy illogical system that the good folks at Harvard peddle. Better still, if enough students copy WP, US academia might swing toward logic ... But, no, WP is no tool to be used for pushing some style or other, however, we are free to adopt one and the one we've adopted by rational consensus is the logical style. Should we worry too much about WP's influence of American academia ... wouldn't we be overrating ourselves? I'm sure America has enough inertia to continue down its current illogical punctuation path in spite of us. There are worse things than logical punctuation on the net for kids to copy. ]<sub> ]·]</sub> 10:21, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
	:This seems to be just another case of the phenomenon described above under ], anyway. --] (]) 10:43, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
	::Hate to point out the obvious, but this coming from a person reading the Misplaced Pages Manual of Style, clicking on the discussion tab, and reading the pedantic discussion therein. ] (]) 19:42, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

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

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

	::The internet is not America. Again: ''The internet is not America''. Calling a stylistic convention "wrong" because it does not match what you were taught completely misses the point of this page, which is to provide guidance to editors in the face of multiple regionally or contextually prevailing conventions. ] (]) 21:14, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
	:::The Internet may not be America, but the readers of the English language Misplaced Pages overwhelmingly are. If we use American spellings in articles (which we do in most), then we need to be consistent. ] (]) 22:38, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

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

	::::Don't forget that the American style was originally the British style, and that the problem comes from the US and Canada (unlike Australia) not following the reform that happened in the UK. A recent change towards the logical system doesn't look like "on the losing side" to me. Also it seems to me that roughly half the native speakers of English live in the logical quotation area, and many of the others prefer logical quotation anyway. And then we have the fact that the Chicago Manual of Style, while clearly preferring the American style, admits there are precision problems and permits logical style where these matter. This affects some (admittedly few) of our articles.
	::::Also the reason for the American system is that it looks better in conventional typography. Given the generally abysmal quality of web typography both on screen and in print, this is simply irrelevant in our context. --] (]) 01:52, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

	::::::''"Some of you folks think you have come up with an improved style of punctuation"''. ...What? You think logical quotation was invented on Misplaced Pages?
	::::::''"you just mandate that all users on Misplaced Pages must conform to the style which you happen find more intuitively pleasing or logical"''. Oh, shut up. If you want to actually discuss the merits of different styles of quotation and how closely they match Misplaced Pages's core aims then I'm happy to engage you on that. I'm not interested in hissy fits. ] (]) 10:57, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
	:::::::No, he means that the combination of "logical" punctuation ''and'' the use of double quotation marks (as default) is novel. I don't think we are the ''first instance'', by any means; but British style guides do recommend single quotes, and the ''CMOS'' does say that British style should have single quotes if used, presumably to keep the comma near the preceding word. ] <small>]</small> 16:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
	::::::::Our choice of quotation glyphs is as unrelated to our choice of internal vs external punctuation as is our choice of ''color'' vs ''colour''. The idea that this is about British vs American style is a persistent error. ] (]) 17:17, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
	::::::::Thanks Septentrionalis. I appreciate you handling my light work. You got it spot on. ] 08:06, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
	::::::::Double quotes are preferred for technical reasons (when searching for <code>abcd</code> the internal search engine will find <code>"abcd"</code> but it won't find <code>'abcd'</code>); I wouldn't object to allow single quotes in articles written in British English if/when that is fixed. --<span style="font-family: monospace; font-weight: 600; color: #00F; background-color: #FFF;">]</span> (formerly Army1987)<small> — ''], not ]''.</small> 10:25, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
	:::::::::Confused as to how that would affect a search? Best, ] 00:21, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
	::::::::::Because search engines will see single quotes as part of the words being searched for, and double quotes as string delimiters. Since the quotes can always be changed after you cut and paste into the search engine, this is a weak argument, but it should be in the quideline. ] <small>]</small> 15:54, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
	:::::::One of Misplaced Pages's core aims is civility. It has been plain for years that this rule (especially as it now stands, without acknowledgment that MOS ''is making a choice'') is not conducive to civility. ] <small>]</small> 16:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

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

	:Makes sense to me. ] (]) 19:53, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

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

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

	:As a general rule of thumb, this seems to be the sensible position. And it's a policy I have adopted and one I think most editors here on Misplaced Pages have adhered to. Articles discussing British subjects, like the British ethologist ] for example, ought to employ British parochialisms. Articles which touch upon general subjects, however, ought to employ general rules of punctuation, as defined by groups like the MLA, APA and other reputable sources. Best, ] (]) 00:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
	::::Do you really expect anyone to take your comments seriously if you use POV language like this? ] (]) 13:29, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
	:::::My only expectation is for people to address the arguments being made. However I'm a little confused as to why I should behave as though I didn't have a point of view when I clearly do? Best ] (]) 02:39, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
	::The long-standing consensus is that articles with no obvious relation to any one place can be written in ''any'' dialect of English, provided that it is consistent and that idioms which can be easily misunderstood by speakers of other dialects are avoided. The fact that there are style guides for American English which are reputable sources doesn't make British rules "parochialisms": there also are style guides for British English which are reputable sources. --<span style="font-family: monospace; font-weight: 600; color: #00F; background-color: #FFF;">]</span> (formerly Army1987)<small> — ''], not ]''.</small> 09:55, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
	:::No, but insisting on ''only'' British format everywhere is parochialism, and impractical parochialism; too many of our editors do not use it, or have never heard of it. ] <small>]</small> 16:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

	::::''"too many of our editors do not use it, or have never heard of it"''. I don't think you get the point of style guides. If we were just describing what our editors already do, this page wouldn't be a guideline. ] (]) 17:17, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
	::::::Guidelines are what our editors generally ''agree'' on doing; see ] (and indeed ]). There is no point to a volunteer organization, which (by policy) accepts anyone, having anything else; nothing else is enforceableable, useful, or conducive to civiility. (There are other ends the futile effort at prescription ''can'' serve, chiefly ego-inflation, but few of them are socially useful; do any of them contribute to the encyclopedia?) ] <small>]</small> 17:45, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
	:::::::''"Guidelines are what our editors generally ''agree'' on doing . There is no point to a volunteer organization, which (by policy) accepts anyone, having anything else"''. It doesn't seem like people can agree not to vandalise pages or edit war, either. Let's get rid of the associated policies. ] (]) 18:33, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
	::::::::On the contrary, that is a perfect example. There ''is'' general agreement (including both sides of the edit war, talking about each other) that edit-warring should not be done; so we have policy against it. ] <small>]</small> 19:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
	:::::::::No, most people have an "unless I'm right" clause in their internal WP:3RRs. Assuming I'm right about that, should we write it into the real policy?
	:::::::::Guidelines aren't there to predict or describe or affirm what people already do. They're supposed to ''guide''. They're there to say "in situation X, do Y". The fact that not everybody will automatically follow the guideline, or that some might reject it, does not negate its purpose or its value. ] (]) 20:03, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
	::::::::::Does it matter, then, ''what'' they guide or ''whether'' editors generally agree with it? ''Reductio ad absurdum'' does work, of course, on the answer No; but I don't want to leap to a conclusion. ] <small>]</small> 20:43, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
	::::::Guidelines are supposed to show what the ''best current practices'' are. (I've read that somewhere, but I don't remember where.) --<span style="font-family: monospace; font-weight: 600; color: #00F; background-color: #FFF;">]</span> (formerly Army1987)<small> — ''], not ]''.</small> 10:25, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
	:::The problem is the consensus you mentioned is not being followed through here. The MoS is explicitly endorsing one style while rejecting the other, even though the one being rejected is far better recognized and implemented more often by most academic institutions. I described the British system as a parochialism because that's what it is: a localized phenomenon. Although many English speakers use it, its use is still in the minority. Best, ] (]) 08:25, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
	::::See my comments to PManderson about what a style guide is and isn't. Our job here isn't to describe what our editors already do. There are more concerns here than just who's in the majority.
	::::I would also point out that logical quotation is not restricted to Britain. Scholars of all countries often use it for its precision, like we do here. ] (]) 08:43, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
	:::::Well this is a public encyclopedia, and decisions ought to be made by majority consensus. A cursory look at the articles seems to favor the American style. As for "logical quotation," its use in public literature is exceedingly narrow, even in the scientific literature, which prefers the APA style. ] 00:21, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
	::::::''"decisions ought to be made by majority consensus"''. No, that's stupid.
	::::::''"its use in public literature is exceedingly narrow, even in the scientific literature, which prefers the APA style"''. Are you still pretending choice of glyphs and choice of internal-vs-external are somehow the same thing? ] (]) 19:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
	:::::::First things first. If you are under the impression that you and your cadre have ownership of this article you are terribly ]. This is an open project, and as long as our contributions are reasonable (and supported by mainstream academic scholarship), then they ought to be considered and decided upon by consensus. My opinion on this issue is simple. Misplaced Pages ought to adopt general and broadly recognized styles of punctuation. I believe this principle, although unspoken, is why we prefer American preferences of spelling. Not because the American style is superior, but that it will be recognized by a preponderance of Misplaced Pages users. I understand that this issue is controversial—oddly enough—so I'm willing to give in to plurality, and put up for consideration that the Misplaced Pages MoS allow editors the flexibility to choose for themselves which style is most appropriate for their prospective articles. To the second point. When I stated that logical quotation was "exceedingly narrow," I meant just that, and nothing more. That the practice of placing a punctuation marks outside the quotation when the punctuation mark is not part of the sentence, and inside the quotation when the punctuation mark is part of the quoted speech is disproportionately narrow as compared to the style which is generally used on the North American continent and adopted by most editors and publishing houses. This with the fact that most academic bodies adopt the American style, makes for a persuasive argument in favor of adopting inside punctuation. The type of glyph was not really an issue with me, as my argument is completely consistent with Misplaced Pages choice of glyph. But there is something to the fact that the odd coupling of styles reduces it further still. Best, ] (]) 05:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

	::::::::''"as long as our contributions are reasonable (and supported by mainstream academic scholarship), then they ought to be considered and decided upon by consensus"''. Nobody's criticised your contributions on the basis of anything but their merit. Don't cry persecution just because people aren't agreeing with you.
	::::::::''"we prefer American preferences of spelling"''. No we don't.
	::::::::''"I'm willing to give in to plurality, and put up for consideration that the Misplaced Pages MoS allow editors the flexibility to choose for themselves"''. Style guides exist for a reason. Logical quotation is plainly superior for our purposes, and I've yet to see any coherent arguments that our explicit preference for it has ever caused any harm, other than to the sensitivities of stylo-dominionistic Americans. ] (]) 11:54, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
	:::::::::''"Don't cry persecution just because people aren't agreeing with you."'' First, "persecution" was never at issue. This is about the possessiveness and arrogance on your part to refuse amending the guidelines in lieu of reasonable (and ongoing) dissent. Second, I think I've easily split the difference here. After all, I'm not the one getting all bothered about consensus. Third, I think our preference for American spelling is quite evident, and I'll leave it for readers to decide for themselves. Third, you've done nothing to address my arguments other than go on about how "plainly superior" logical quotation is. Never mind that most of the academic and literary world disagrees with you. But what do they know, right? In any case, my argument has nothing to do with which style is theoretically superior (the answer is none). The argument is based on four factors. 1, which style is better recognized by (English speaking) Misplaced Pages readers? 2, which style is in accordance with general principles of academic convention? 3, which style is backed by the preponderance of editors and publishing houses? 4, could the coupling of American and British styles confuse students on the North American continent, thus leading to the adoption of a style which will be rejected by their institutions of learning? Your arguments so far have been: so what, shut up, and this has been decided long ago -- go away. So far, not so impressed. Best, ] (]) 20:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
	::::::::::"easonable dissent" – that's exactly the key problem. So far there have been ''no'' reasonable arguments from your side. And that's why you currently don't have a chance to get the MOS changed. --] ] 17:21, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
	:::::::::::Excuse my honesty, but you wouldn't know reason if it hit you in the face. ] (]) 06:48, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
	::::::::::::Mchavez: please take a look at ]. I believe you owe Hans Adler an apology. ] ] 13:49, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::If Hans was in any way hurt by my comment he has my sincerest apologies (and sympathy). It was wrong of me to imply that reason would assault him, and such an assault would thereby go unnoticed or unrecognized. Best, ] (]) 23:19, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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

	::The purpose of writing (whether in English or any other human language) is to be understood. Thus clarity of communication is paramount, and should decide any issues about grammatical rules. Consequently, I put punctuation inside when it is part of what I am quoting, or outside when it is part of my sentence structure. Thus one might have a period inside the quotation and also one outside it, if the quotation is a full declarative sentence and forms the last ''word'' in one of my declarative sentences. For example, one might say
	:::Byzantine Emperor ] said "Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.".
	::I do not care whether we call this American, British, or logical. It is the system I use. ] (]) 00:51, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
	:::That is actually logical, but it is neither of the systems under discussion. This shows the ineffectiveness of the present prohibition.

	:::Again, who opposes acknowledging that there are at least two systems (since Misplaced Pages is doubtless actually using both) and describing the reasons to choose one or the other? ] <small>]</small> 03:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

	What about: <blockquote>In British English, punctuation marks are placed inside the quotation marks only if they are part of the quoted text:
	:{{xt\|Arthur said, "The situation is deplorable and unacceptable."}} (The period is part of the quoted text.)
	:{{xt\|Arthur said that the situation was "deplorable".}} (The period is not part of the quoted text.)
	In American English, commas and periods are normally placed inside the quotation marks regardless of whether they are part of the quoted text:
	:{{xt\|Arthur said that the situation was "deplorable."}}
	Nevertheless, the British style can also be used in American English in scientific and technical contexts where the standard American style would be misleading:
	:{{xt\|In the ] text editor, a line can be deleted from the file by typing "<tt>dd</tt>".}} (Putting the period inside the quotation marks would suggest that it also must be typed, but that would delete ''two'' lines.)</blockquote> --<span style="font-family: monospace; font-weight: 600; color: #00F; background-color: #FFF;">]</span> (formerly Army1987)<small> — ''], not ]''.</small> 09:55, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
	:"The British" or "American ''format''" might be better. Americans do use the British style, sometimes; and conversely. ] <small>]</small> 16:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
	:Sounds pretty good. ] (]) 08:13, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

	We have a clear guideline here. It is generally accepted, and it works. PLEASE leave it alone. See ] above. Thank you. ] ] 01:17, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

	::::As the project page states, the standard is based on precision: "it is used by Misplaced Pages both because of the principle of minimal change, and also because the method is less prone to misquotation, ambiguity, and the introduction of errors in subsequent editing.". That is also why it is called ''logical quotation''. It has nothing to do with ], and adding ] to the explanation would muddle something that is now clear. ] ] 22:02, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
	:::::That is the (fairly feeble) argument for it; and editors should indeed consider it. The "imprecision" consists of the fact that some readers, faced with the other system, which uses {{xt\|,"}} as a compound sign, will be parochial enough to read the single comma as part of the quotation although it need not be. Editors should be aware of that possibility, and adopt "logical" punctuation when it will be a problem - or recast to avoid the comma; but it's a ''single comma''. ] <small>]</small> 15:46, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

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

	::"If it were generally accepted, this small section wouldn't attract complaints every other month." The last time an objection to logical quotation was raised was six months ago, by ''']''' (in a discussion of timewasting complaints). Prior to that there was a discussion in August 2008 (again involving ]); and prior to that, there was a discussion in May 2008, again involving ]. That certainly adds up to far less than a complaint "every other month", as you must be aware as a participant in the last three unsuccessful and frequently-rejected "challenges". ] (]) 23:18, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
	:::::*When I see this come up, I tell those who object that they are not alone, and attempt to give the reasons that this page should, like other Misplaced Pages pages, give both sides of the story, as I have done here. ] <small>]</small> 20:59, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
	:::This debate is ridiculous. If editors want to use the most well known system of punctuation, which is adopted by most universities, books, newspapers and periodicals then they should. ] 00:21, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
	::::]. ] (]) 01:27, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
	::::: That small edit is actually how a came to find out about this unusual policy of yours. I find it, well, odd that an article dealing exclusively with American popular culture should be so infused with British parochialisms. ] (]) 02:27, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
	*I should remind those who wave ] around: it prohibits doing actions which you do ''not'' support, or which damage the encyclopedia, to make a point. Doing actions which you do support, and which help the encyclopedia, despite a guideline is ]; that is supported by '''policy'''. However, those who do this must state what benefit they see, and may be reversed unless supported by local consensus. ] <small>]</small> 15:50, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
	¶ For whatever little it may be worth, I crossed the Atlantic thrice between the ages of 6 and 11, ending up in the U.S. with a mild chauvinistic prejudice in favour of British style & spelling. But sometimes American practice makes more sense to me on a relatively objective logical basis and sometimes British. I think American double-quotes are far better because they avoid double-takes when an apostrophe (prime, etc.) is encountered either in the middle of a quotation or closely outside one. '''' That's still a problem with apostrophes near an enclosed quotation, but those are less common. But I don't like introducing punctuation that isn't in the original, no matter what the aesthetic advantages might be, because it can either mislead the reader or impose on him or her the burden of trying to reconstruct what the original looked like. On the other hand, if you're quoting a whole sentence that ends with a full-stop/period (or would, if it were written down from speech) then by almost the very same logic, leave it inside the quotation marks. This rule, by the way, is almost imperative (from my point of view) for other stops such as exclamation points and question/interrogation marks because doing otherwise could distort the import of the original quotation; so why not follow it for periods/full-stops and commas? ] (]) 18:15, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
	:I'll admit it. I sort of hope logical punctuation is eventually adopted by the academic community -- even though it's aesthetically inferior with its lack of symmetry and uniformity -- but until that day comes I'm going to stick with "mainstream" academic convention. Maybe it's because I'm a ], and studies show that we tend to be less rebellious. I suppose that also explains why I continue to use Windows. Best, ] (]) 09:38, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
	::I do not think we should call the British system "logical." It biases people against American punctuation by implying that it is illogical. It's not more logical; it's just a different way of solving an old typographical problem. It's perfectly logical to spell "color" without a U, but if I'm writing an article about London wall paintings, I'd best use London spelling.
	::I propose that we instead refer to the British punctuation rule as it applies to commas and periods as "the stop rule" or "the stop system" because it relies on the location of the stop within the sentence. It's descriptive, nearly self-explanatory and, hopefully, won't tick anyone off.
	::If the matter of British or American punctuation is being revisited, then here are my two cents: Why not use the guideline that is already in place for spelling? Articles that are about specifically American or British topics use the spelling that more closely relates to the subject matter, and articles that don't apply to either stick with the system established by the original contributor.] (]) 19:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

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

	:Calling one system "logical" implies that its alternative is illogical. For example, factions in the abortion debate imply that their opponents are "pro-death" or "anti-choice." Another way to mitigate this is to give the American system a name of its own and use both in the article, such as in an article that refers to both the pro-life and pro-choice factions by their own selected names (or an article that refers to the two systems as "British" vs. "American" or as "logical" vs. "consistent," etc.). As for what could be more logical, it can be argued that it is more logical to treat periods and commas consistently as opposed to switching back and forth. The name "logical," with regard to the stop rule, is arbitrary. ] (]) 22:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
	::If a style were called by any other name, it would smell just as logical ... or consistent ... Well, the American style ''is'' illogical. To put something within inverted commas regardless of whether it is part of the quote ''is'' illogical. This is no anti-American bias nor is it arbitary. Nor do I see how logic could lead us to the idea that we should prefer the kind of "consistency" involved in putting fullstops and commas (and what about other punctuation marks?) within the quote regardless of whether they belong there. Consistency, on the other hand, it might be argued, leads us directly to logical punctuation for what could be more consistant than having everything within the inverted commas being part of the quote and everthing outside not? I'd thus argue that logical quotation is ''more'' consistant or conforms to a higher level of consistency that the alternative. So to use the term ''consistent'' to describe the American style and thus imply that the logical style is inconsistent would not be correct. The term ''æsthetic punctuation'' is sometimes used but beauty is in the eye of the beholder (and I can name you one beholder who see nothing pretty here). There is, however, another name which is often used for the American style: ''typesetters punctuation'' since it was the early typesetters who came up with this style for practical reasons, reasons which no longer apply. ]<sub> ]·]</sub> 18:14, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
	::It is not illogical and calling it so offends me deeply. As you've just demonstrated with the word "consistent," words can apply or not apply to something depending on how the reasoning is worked out. Your argument against the logic of American punctuation would only hold water if were not understood that using a period or comma to end a quote is just part of the quoting process. It is. And in American English, full stops and commas are put there because they ''do'' belong there.
	::I wouldn't object to calling the stop rule "technical punctuation," because it is used in technical documents. ] (]) 18:32, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

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

	:::* None of the other systems that have been mentioned here is "opposite" to logical quotation, so in calling it ''logical quotation'' there is no implication that any of these other systems is "the opposite of logical", even if there were such a thing as "the opposite of logical" in this situation (which there isn't).
	:::] (]) 00:17, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

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

	:::::Actually, no. You have inferred such a suggestion. Inference is what you bring to it, implication is what the originator brought to it. Recognizing that you like reliable sources (whatever their limitations in a discussion such as this one), do you have any reliable sources saying that the term "logical quotation" was chosen for what you are reading into it, rather than for what I am reading into it (or for some other reason)? ] (]) 23:39, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
	::::::No, but it's a pretty reasonable assumption to make. And even if the slight was made absent-mindedly, it's still there. There are plenty of people who say insulting, insensitive or offensive things without realizing it until after the fact. ] (]) 01:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
	:::::::It's not all that reasonable an assumption (even if one does entirely set aside WP:AGF, which really oughtn't be set aside here since presumably only Wikipedians patronize the MOS). The assumption would be that the name "logical quotation" was chosen in order to suggest that that style makes more sense than the British or American style. That would be a ''spiteful'' reason for choosing the name; to assume it, one would have to also assume that the proponents either defied, or served with cunning deception, their obvious motive not to offend patrons of the other styles. Moreoever, there is a straightforward rational motivation at hand for the name, and the style was apparently adopted for a rational reason, so it would be a gratuitous complication — violating Occam's Razor — to suppose that the name wasn't chosen for the available rational reason, but instead for a spiteful one. ] (]) 05:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

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

	:† ] such as '']'', '']'', and '']''. ] and language associations, such as: '']'', '']'', '']'', ''APSA Style Manual'', ''AMA Manual of Style'', ''The Associated Press guide to Punctuation'', ''U.S. Government Printing Office Style Manual'' (2008, p. 217), ''The Canadian Style: A Guide to Writing and Editing'' (1997, p. 148), ''International Committee of Medical Journal Editors'', American Institute of Physics' ''AIP Style Manual'' (1990, p. 12), and the ''The Gregg Reference Manual'', the foremost business manual. Lastly punctuation reference volumes such as: ''The McGraw-Hill desk reference'' by K. D. Sullivan (2006, p. 52), ''The New Oxford guide to Writing'' by Thomas S. Kane (1994, p. 278), ''Webster's New World Punctuation'' by Geraldine Woods (2005, p. 68), ''The Blue Book of Grammar and Punctuation'' by Jane Straus, ''Quotation Marks: Teaching the Basics'' by Susan Collins, ''The McGraw-Hill Handbook of English Grammar'' by Mark Lester, ''The New York Times Manual of Style and Usage'' by Allan M. Siegal, ''The New York Times Guide to Essential Knowledge'' by New York Times Staff (p. 788), ''Punctuation'' by Jennifer DeVere Brody, ''Better punctuation in 30 Minutes a Day'' by Ceil Cleveland, ''The Copyeditor's Handbook'' by Amy Einsohn (p. 111) which states: "All principal style manuals except for the CBE recommend what is called American Style."] ] (]) 08:28, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
	::Chavez, I agree with many of the points you've made below, specifically that actual usage of punctuation in articles does vary, that the "consensus" on the stop rule could be something of a self-fulfilling prophecy and that the consensus for changing Misplaced Pages's policy has not yet been met. However, I don't think that Finell has "abandoned" American style so much as that he is able to accept a guideline even if he doesn't like it, a very useful ability on a site like this one. ] (]) 16:48, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

	::Sure, if the rule says to do something, it's logical to do so. The question is whether the rule itself is logical. Yes, there is beauty in symmetry (or at least for most beholders).
	::*Here's your "symmetry."
	::*Here's your "symmetry".
	::Are you telling us that the first of these is more symmetric? The second has the inverted commas neatly enclosing the word. In the first you've got this full stop in the way. ]<sub> ]·]</sub> 22:22, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
	:::I was referring to the symmetry of the article, and that with logical quotation the full stops jump in and out of the inverted commas. Best, ] (]) 22:45, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
	:::I do happen to find the first line more symmetric, but I don't think that aesthetics should be at the top of our list of things to consider. Try this: The so-called logical system was invented for technical documents, so it might be useful in articles that cover technical subjects, but why are we using it on articles that don't need it? The American rule is only confusing if it's not understood that using periods and commas is part of the quotation process. In American English, it is quite understood.
	:::One of the cardinal rules of writing is "write for your audience," corollary: "write for your subject matter." We should use the system that is most appropriate to the subject matter. ] (]) 01:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

	Let’s all take a step back here for a moment.<div style="clear:both"></div>

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

	<div style="background-color:white;border:1px black solid;margin-left:4em;padding:1em">
	American style:<br />
	“At all events, the next best thing to being witty one’s self, is to be able to quote another’s wit<strong style="color:red;font-weight:900">.”</strong><br />
	Ralph Waldo Emerson once said that “a great man quotes bravely<strong style="color:red;font-weight:900">,”</strong> and I have no cause to disagree.

	British style:<br />
	“At all events, the next best thing to being witty one’s self, is to be able to quote another’s wit<strong style="color:red;font-weight:900">.”</strong><br />
	Ralph Waldo Emerson once said that “a great man quotes bravely<strong style="color:red;font-weight:900">”,</strong> and I have no cause to disagree.

	“Logical” style:<br />
	“At all events, the next best thing to being witty one’s self, is to be able to quote another’s wit<strong style="color:red;font-weight:900">.”.</strong><br />
	Ralph Waldo Emerson once said that “a great man quotes bravely<strong style="color:red;font-weight:900">”,</strong> and I have no cause to disagree.
	</div>

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

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

	I do think the American style is more aesthetically pleasing, however (while I feel good typography is very important) precision trumps aesthetics. If you want to consider <strong style="font-weight:900">,”</strong> a combined glyph, to the ]. Then, assuming it’s accepted, we can take up this topic again in 20 years when the new character is widely supported… Alternatively, you could create a new properly-licensed default font for Misplaced Pages with a tweaked <strong style="font-weight:900">,”</strong> kernpair and push for it to be included in all major operating systems. That would probably only take 10 years if you’re successful.  ;)

	] (]) 05:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

	::I would agree that there is overwhelmingly no consensus for change. I would also agree that there is clear evidence that ''whether to put trailing punctuation inside or outside the quotation marks'' is quite controversial — though I see no particular reason to think that the level of controversy surrounding the convention now endorsed by the MOS is any greater than the level of controversy that would surround any other position that the MOS cound adopt on that issue (even the "no position" position). There is at least one reason, namely the history of the MOS on the issue, to suspect that any other position would be more controversial than the current one. ] (]) 22:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
	:::That seems to be the only (and preferred) argument for keeping logical quotation in the MoS: it's been there for so long. I prefer to decide things based on substantive reasons. Second, I hope you have not misread my argument. "Higher level" consensus is not needed to replace an existing guideline, it's required to have a guideline at all. Given the practical concerns expressed over this issue--and it's long history of repeated controversy--logical quotation's position as a reputable guideline is dubious at best. ] (]) 23:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
	:::::Though I have done so elsewhere, I made no argument here for or against logical quotation. I merely pointed out that there is no evidence supporting your claim about level of controversy, and that in fact there is even some reason to suspect the opposite of your claim.
	:::::It is blatantly false that that argument (which I, for one, have not made) is the only argument for keeping logical quotation in the MOS. Even I, a late comer to the discussion mainly occupied with clearing away side issues (hoping thereby to facilitate access to the substance of the matter), have mentioned a substantive advantage of logical quotation for Misplaced Pages.
	:::::Your claim about the reputation of the guideline is based on reasoning that successfully resisting challenges is a sign of weakness.
	:::::] (]) 19:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
	::::::Okay, I was being cavalier. It was my (rhetorical) way of expressing my feelings about the quality of the arguments coming from the other side. As for our interpretations of the controversy, I suppose it's a matter of how you look at it. If the preponderance of articles are universally divided (or should I say confused) on the matter, and if the small group of participants here are fairly divided, that is enough to merit using the word controversy. Official policies regarding style should have strong and broad consensus. They should be obvious and reasonable to all (or at least most) thinking people. The simple fact is it isn't so obvious. Indeed there has been great division and much energy spent debating this subject, from many contributors, spanning the long history of its adoption. Why should Misplaced Pages adopt a style of punctuation rejected by most English speakers, rejected by most academics, most publishers, which remains—under its current rubric—unreferenced by a single style guide? ] (]) 01:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
	:::::::Chavez, while style guides referring to the technical quotation system are rare, it is possible to find them. I did a few days ago, though I've lost the link. Also, if the American Chemical Association has a style guide, it's probably in there. ] (]) 02:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
	::::::::You can call me Miguel. Well, I've run across ''The ACS Style Guide'', but I couldn't remember how it treated other forms of punctuation (besides periods and commas), or how it handled punctuation from quoted material. So I wasn't quite sure if it fell under the rubric of logical quotation (which seems to be the branding of the online community). But I will take a look as soon as I can. Best, ] (]) 02:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

	:That is why the American system makes exceptions for the types of keyboard inputs that you're describing. For the overwhelming majority of English writing, including encyclopedia-style writing, software-style punctuation is an unnecessary complication.
	:I've seen a lot of professional and amateur programmers and software engineers favoring this style, but Misplaced Pages is written for a general audience. For this reason, I believe that British-themed articles should use British punctuation and American-themed articles American punctuation. In those rare cases in which Misplaced Pages's current style would be beneficial, such as articles about certain chemical compounds and software concepts, I would support it. ] (]) 18:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

	::I vote for the American style. ] (]) 13:34, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
	:::Would you care to explain why, too? (keep in mind that ]. --] (]) 13:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
	::::LjL is correct. Misplaced Pages works by consensus, not vote results, as per ]. Ideally, decisions are made by weight of reasoning rather than by the number of supporters on each side. Please tell us yours, HowardMorland. (This may take some courage on your part, given how heated these discussions can get. Heh!) ] (]) 22:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

	===The Dispute Tag===
	* '''Query''' Would anyone mind if we remove the "disputed" tag from the project page? Anyone who cares know it's disputed, and I'm tired of referring editors to read about the subject and having them confronted by this banner. --] ] 20:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
	:Unequivocally, yes. First, there is a current discussion about the legitimacy of the guideline, thereby meriting the disputed tag. Second, the tag is an excellent way to bring more contributors into this discussion. As of yet, we only have a handful of participants hammering out the issue, and this policy broadly effects the entire encyclopedia. Third, there are problems associated with the current guidelines, both practical and philosophical, which have not been addressed or resolved. Best, ] (]) 00:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
	::Sad to say, the tag still belongs there, no matter how tired of it people are. And we should never assume that people already know things just because they seem obvious to those of us who are hip-deep in it. With regard to referring new editors to source material, is there some way we could include a link to appropriate references in or near the tag or in some other reasonably obvious place? ] (]) 01:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
	:::Added. Think it'll help? ] (]) 01:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

	::::::This matter keeps coming up and keeps coming up and keeps coming up. This is a persistently controversial issue. It's not that some people disagree with the guideline, it's that so many people disagree with the guideline once they see it that it's subject to nearly constant question. That's a dispute.
	::::::Don't assume that "people who don't know" means "people who wouldn't care if they did know." Most likely, there are plenty of sticklers for proper punctuation and proper guidelines who don't know that this problem is here. ] (]) 12:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
	::::::Addendum. I know about this rule and I don't get involved in every new discussion, but that doesn't mean that I accept or approve of it. When I feel like I've said my piece, I leave the field, but I check in every now and again to see if there's anything new to say--like this time--or if the matter is being seriously considered for revision. If you or anyone else is tired of talking about this, then I recommend that you take a similar tack. ] (]) 12:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
	:::::::I agree the tag shouldn't be there. There are many policies and guidelines that many people strongly disagree with; we don't go around putting disputed tags on all of them. If I can't convince people that something needs changing (which regrettably is too often the case), I just let it go (as Darkfrog suggests), but without trying to leave a permanent record of my and others' dissatisfaction in the form of a misleading dispute tag. --] (]) 12:35, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
	::::::::Kotniski--I certainly don't mean that proponents of technical style should just let it go. I wasn't just letting it go when I took a break; I was taking a break. I mean that 1. there might be more people who care about this matter than the current page reflects 2. if people are tired of the debate, then it's perfectly acceptable for them to switch to lurk mode 3. being tired of the dispute is not a good reason to remove the tag. It's about whether the dispute exists, not whether people are tired of it. ] (]) 14:45, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
	:::::::If we were writing the guideline from scratch, I think there'd be no consensus for any side. There has been a ton of debate on the issue (both recently & historically) & it has drawn many people into it at different times. Because many aren't happy with the way the guideline is now, that tag should be kept. Removing it would not quash debate, but that is the only motive I see for wanting it removed. Clearly, there is room for improvement in the guideline, even if we disagree how that improvement is to be made. --] (]) 13:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
	::::::::Removing the tag won't quash debate (though frankly it wouldn't be a bad thing if it did - the debate just goes on in the same circles without getting anywhere new), it would just remove an obstacle to the clarity of the information about what style is currently used in Misplaced Pages.--] (]) 14:24, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
	:::::::::Removing the tag would affect the debate by making it look less legitimate than it is. I do not feel that it interferes with the clarity of the MoS. Remember, the tag itself doesn't suggest alternative styles. The MoS itself only talks about Misplaced Pages's own style. ] (]) 14:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
	::::::::::Responding to Kotniski's comments below, are the other issues as perennial as this one? With regard to plagues, you make a decent point, but we're not talking about whether to put more tags up; we're talking about whether to keep one that's already there. Consensus to add and consensus to remove. ] (]) 20:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
	::::::::::: My problem with the tag is that, as a content reviewer, I constantly refer everyday editors to the MoS. They do not know or care what arguments ensue on the MoS Talk page. They just want to read what to do so they can meet the Featured Article requirement for conforming to the MoS. What are they supposed to do if they come and find a stupid banner over the guideline? They won't know what to do. The guideline can be discussed ''ad nauseum'' here, but I ask that the general editing public be spared from the confusion resulting from the disputed tag. If you want to raise awareness, you can always file an RfC. I implore you—there are few enough FAC reviewers as it is. We don't need to make their job more difficult. May I remove the banner? --] ] 19:48, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
	::::::::::::I took the liberty of creating a new dispute tag in order to address your concerns. Best, ] (]) 20:24, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

	(outdent)Darkfrog24 says that this question "keeps coming up". I refer to the characterization of the history, given in this thread by chocolateboy on May19, quoting and responding to a statement by ]:
	<blockquote>"If it were generally accepted, this small section wouldn't attract complaints every other month." The last time an objection to logical quotation was raised was six months ago, by ''']''' (in a discussion of timewasting complaints). Prior to that there was a discussion in August 2008 (again involving ]); and prior to that, there was a discussion in May 2008, again involving ]. That certainly adds up to far less than a complaint "every other month", as you must be aware as a participant in the last three unsuccessful and frequently-rejected "challenges". ] (]) 23:18, 16 May 2009 (UTC)</blockquote>
	I'll concede that the current guideline doesn't have universal support. No guideline on this point will. The absence of universal support doesn't justify a permanent tag/banner, not even if the dissidents are tireless in raising the same objection.

	The specific banner newly created and added by Mchavez reads: "It has been recommended that articles seeking Featured Article status continue to follow the guideline until the issue has been resolved." My comments:
	* This isn't a recommendation. It's still the guideline, not just somebody's essay.
	* The passive voice should be avoided.
	* The guideline is of general applicability, not limited to prospective Featured Articles.
	* This banner still gives a false impression that there's a live, ongoing dispute, with a serious proposal being considered for changing the guideline, as opposed to just persistent dissidents. My earlier question still applies: Under what circumstances, if any, would Mchavez and others consent to the removal of the banner? Would it still be there a month from now if nothing momentous has happened?
	Meanwhile, to address my specific points, I suggest this alternative wording: "Despite this dispute, the guideline remains in effect unless and until it is altered by consensus." ]<small> ] ]</small> 05:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

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

	::This ''is'' a live, ongoing dispute. That being said, the wording, "Despite this dispute, the guideline remains in effect unless and until it is altered by consensus," is fine with me. ] (]) 17:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
	:::Done. ] (]) 21:06, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
	:::: Regarding your #3 point above, I'm not sure if it's directed at me, but I assure you that my interest in this matter is related to the FA process. One glance at my contributions should show that FAC is my primary arena of interest and I am not an MoS edit warrior or, indeed, editor at all. At any rate, #3 is a fantastic failure of good faith and good form. --] ] 22:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

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

	:::::As for your #4, I'm sorry you've formed an impression of arrogance. Some of the attitudes you attribute to me would border on arrogance if I indeed held them. In fact, however, I didn't call this a false debate. I didn't deny the possibility that there might someday be a revision. I said only that the existence of disagreement didn't justify a permanent tag. As for your modification of your custom-made banner, it's an improvement by not mentioning Featured Articles, but the wording is still misleading. It's not "recommended" (by whom?) that the guideline remain in effect. The guideline ''does'' remain in effect until changed. That doesn't mean it can never be changed. That doesn't mean it's absolute (it can be violated in rare circumstance). It just means that, under Misplaced Pages rules, it remains in effect unless and until changed. What modification of meaning did you intend by inserting this "recommended" phrase into the wording I suggested? ]<small> ] ]</small> 23:31, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
	::::::First I would like to apologize to ] for the act of misappropriation. That was a bit of carelessness on my part. To Mr. Lane: I didn't create this discussion for the sole purposes of being disagreeable. Following my shock that Misplaced Pages had adopted such a policy, there was an honest attempt on my part to reach a moderate solution or compromise of sorts. To my disappointment I have been met with scoffs that there could even be room for adjustment or moderation. It's clear that the LQ people won't budge an inch. The general attitude is: ''stop wasting your time with arguments and just go away; we decided this long ago''. If I was some sort of crank I could come to terms with this, and simply blame it on a secret cabal, as you implied. What makes this so frustrating is that my position accords with what most experts have to say, and what is considered standard by most publishers and editors. As for the tag I didn't put it up, nor do I believe it should be a permanent fixture. My position is—and has always been—to discuss the merits of each system (with editors willing to debate the issues point by point), and have a natural consensus arise out of these discussions. Ideally I would like to reach some sort of compromise (however limited) that could put an end this issue from arising again, again, and again and again. To take this tag down in the middle of our debate seems hasty and premature. Best, ] (]) 01:34, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
	:::::::I wouldn't characterize it as arrogance, but I have been getting a vibe of, "I am tired of talking, so you must stop talking." As for the case itself, if Misplaced Pages adopts a system that's considered flat-out wrong by almost every style guide ever written, then it's going to be disputed over and over and over. This is not something that crops up with other Misplaced Pages policies. The tag reflects what's going on. ] (]) 01:45, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
	::::::::I would classify it as arrogance. ] (]) 02:09, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
	:::::::::But perhaps it is countereffective to call it so. When Troviatore called American style "stupid," people on both sides of the quotation issue told him to find another way to express himself. You haven't gone so far as that, but in a matter like this one, it's worth going the extra mile to make people feel like they're not being disrespected. ] (]) 02:17, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
	::::::Sorry, I missed your point about using the word "recommended." As per no. 6 on my last reply, this is what style guides do: they offer recommendations. That's why they call them ''guides'' after all and not laws or commandments. Each article has its editors, and none of them take orders from you, me, or anyone else. I've been reading quite a number of style guides lately and they are all consistent on this point. When styles differ, they explain the advantages of each system and they offer their recommendations. If this isn't enough, do a search for "recommend" on the ] and see what you get. Best, ] (]) 02:09, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
	:::::::I'm glad you agree that the banner shouldn't be a permanent fixture. As for your use of "recommend", it's apples and oranges to say that published style guides use the word. They use it to make recommendations about what should be in the users' writing. You're using it to make a recommendation about what should be in the style guide itself. I still don't understand what's intended by "Until the dispute is resolved by consensus, it is recommended that the guideline remain in effect." Recommended by whom and to whom? In particular, I remain unenlightened as to whether you intended your wording to convey a meaning different from "the guideline remains in effect unless and until it is altered by consensus." The latter wording is a correct statement of Misplaced Pages policy about changing a guideline. ]<small> ] ]</small> 03:19, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
	::::::::Too biased. How about, "Until the dispute is resolved by consensus, the guideline remains in effect" or just "For the time being, the guideline remains in effect"? ] (]) 04:05, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
	::::::::I don't see how the meaning is changed by simply inverting the text, or by the inclusion of the word "recommended." You can switch it around all you want, it means the same thing. With regard to whom is doing the "recommending," it is recommended by us, the participants of this dispute. (Upon the request of ].) I also remember that I specifically included the word "recommended" because I tried to find an official policy which addresses disputed guidelines, but could find none. If you are aware of one I would greatly appreciate it. Best, ] (]) 05:13, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

	{{t1\|editprotected}}
	I request that the dispute tag be removed from the page (under Quotation Marks, Inside or outside). The discussion has gone nowhere and there has been no consensus to change the MoS. Additionally, the tag basically tells editors that the guidelines stays in place until we change it... which goes without saying. All the banner does is confound everyday editors. --] ] 19:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

	:I disagree. The content is repeatedly disputed. I've seen no evidence that the tag confuses anyone--though if you have any or wish to explain, I'm here and listening. ] (]) 20:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
	:I do agree, however, that our discussion about whether or not to keep the tag isn't going anywhere. Everyone currently here seems to have said all they have to say about whether the tag should stay or go. There doesn't seem to be any consensus for removing it. ] (]) 20:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
	:Should we file an RfC for this? Perhaps some fresh, unbiased eyes would help. ] (]) 20:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
	:: An RfC for the dispute tag? Absolutely not. I can't tell if you're talking about the issue in general or the tag. You've failed to gain consensus on the issue. The dispute tag never should have been there, and now that you've failed to gain consensus for your changes, its doubly inappropriate. What purpose is the tag serving? If even one person refrains from making an MoS-prescribed change because of that tag, it's causing damage. What good is it doing? Preventing people from making changes that the MoS might later disagree with if you get your way? I don't think that's kosher, do you really? I'd much rather you raise awareness with an RFC that with that banner. --] ] 20:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

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

	::I am talking about the tag indicating that the wording of that particular section is disputed. For the record, it was there before I got here. The good that it's doing is letting people know that the material is disputed and that editing that section will be a touchy matter. Am fine with removing edit protection. ] (]) 21:32, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
	::: By "people" you mean you and Mchavez, the ones who are interested in editing it? Why do you need a banner to let yourself know that your own edits will be "a touchy matter"? I'm going to the pub to have a pint now. --] ] 22:04, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
	:::: PMAnderson . There have certainly been more than 2-3 people on each side of the debate. The text of the tag is accurate: there is still much ongoing discussion on this talk page regarding this topic and, in the absent of consensus to do anything else, the guideline should be followed. Seems reasonable to keep it up there.--] (]) 22:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
	::::It gives people who might otherwise say nothing because they feel their "voice" won't carry much weight, especially on a long-standing policy or guideline.]]] 20:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

	===Imperative vs. indicative===
	I think the inside or outside section of the MoS would be clearer if it were phrased in the imperative, as in "Put periods and commas inside or outside the quote marks..." rather than "Periods and commas are put." It is less likely to imply that the guideline is describing the English language rather than instructions from Misplaced Pages. Something similar is done with the line about subject headers: "Capitalize the first letter of the subject header but not..." rather than "Only the first letter is capitalized." This way, it doesn't imply that title-style is incorrect, only that it's not for Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 14:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
	:If you prefer; it doesn't carry that implication to me (if we want to make clear that this is specifically a WP style statement - and I think we should - then we should do that explicitly). And about the tag, I don't doubt that you think this a major and vital issue, but there are statements ''all over'' WP project and guideline space that people strongly disagree with. Probably most statements in fact - if no-one disagrees with something, quite likely no-one's ever thought to write it down. OK, one tag doesn't make much difference, but if we started putting them all over the place because people feel their dissenting views are somehow "legitimized" by them (and I don't see how they are), then they would become a plague. --] (]) 16:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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

	===Ambiguous phrasing in British English explanation===

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

	Does the "and the quotation is separated from the author's text by some form of punctuation mean" "Periods and commas are placed outside the quotation marks unless the quotation is separated" or "Periods and commas are placed outside the quotation marks unless... Also, the quotation is separated"?] (]) 01:40, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
	:It is correct. See the top of ] for examples. What the paragraph is saying is, if you quote someone's words you have to put some form of punctuation, like a comma or a colon, (dividing it and your words) in order to place the period ''inside'' the quotation. If your words aren't separated by punctuation, then the end point goes outside. For example:
	::*The British man said 'The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog'.
	:::''vs''
	::*The British man said, 'The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog.'
	::*The British man said: 'The quick brown fox', shrewdly, 'jumps over the lazy dog.'
	:This is also an advantage of the American system, as it does away with such nuances. Best, ] (]) 02:33, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
	:::It makes it look as though the British system uses double punctuation, as in, ''The British man said "The fox jumps.", and then I gave him a pretzel.'' Is this the case? ] (]) 04:07, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
	::::It didn't occur to me that anyone would read it that way. I can fix that. ] (]) 04:24, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

	*Just ''where'' is the consensus for this MAJOR change? I think it should be reverted until the consensus can be established. ] ] 04:33, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
	:Umm. Just what are you going on about? Clarification please. ] (]) 05:13, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

	===Quotation-mark dispute should end soon===
	* '''Leave original wording'''. I think the original rule was good enough. I even wrote the Misplaced Pages article "]" (years ago) and cited valid sources/footnotes, but some people hacked and later deleted that article (whatever). I'm a computer scientist, ready to change the world, so instead, I say tell Americans to change their punctuation style to become logical. Most articles are written free-hand, not copied from American texts, so punctuation is chosen manually. Anyway, when quoting old prose, the text is to be copied verbatim, even with ] (such as "]"). However, in math and many computer languages, the quotemarks are nested (which is truly logical and simpler). Meanwhile, knowing that people would fight this issue, I have edited thousands of articles with the following tricks:<br>{{in\|8}}- use "and"/"or" for commas: Specify "a" or "b" or "c" without commas.<br>{{in\|8}}- use parentheses to capture an ending quotemark: Say "I agree" (not "You're right").<br>The use of parentheses can often prevent the need to force a dot/period inside the quotation marks (because the nesting is specified by "( )" before the end of the phrase).<br>Anyway, logically, I say it's been good enough during the past 4 years, so leave it basically as is. It has not been an ominous danger to American grammatical culture. However, I applaud the recognition of the dispute-tag, but I feel, at this time, the dispute is over. -] (]) 09:25, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
	:By your reasoning, American punctuation has been good enough for the past 150 years.
	:Yes, there are lots of computer programmers on this board who prefer Misplaced Pages's current style to standard American punctuation. I guess people favor what they're used to.
	:That being said, we have certainly ''not'' reached consensus for adding lines explaining that Misplaced Pages's style differs from standard British and American punctuation. ] (]) 12:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
	'''Question''': This discussion is actually impossible to read for a newcomer. Can someone tell whether some consensus resulted? Cheers.--] <big>]</big> 11:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
	::The consensus, violently opposed by three editors, has been from the beginning that our rules for handling punctuation in quotations are fine as they are and have been for a long time. The English-speaking world used to treat commas and full stops at the end of quotations counter-intuitively as special cases. The technical reasons for this special rule no longer apply, and the special rule is in the process of being abolished. Here we are seeing rearguard action by extreme supporters of typographic conservatism. They are spreading confusion by claiming that the term ''logical quotation'' is offensive, that logical quotation is not exactly the same as the standard style used in the UK, etc.
	::This explanation will no doubt cause violent protest from ''up to three'' editors. Two who prefer the eccentric system that is still the standard in the US, and one who always insists that MOS should never prefer a correct option over another correct option. ] ] 12:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

	:::Lykantrop, the issue over which the page was protected was '''whether or not the MoS should include a line explaining''' that Misplaced Pages's current punctuation system differs significantly from both standard American and standard British English. '''No consensus was reached.''' Much discussion of the punctuation system itself took place.
	:::And good heavens, Hans! Just because people don't agree with you doesn't mean they're reactionaries or trying to make trouble. The American punctuation system is not "eccentric" or "in the process of being abolished." While the rule might have gotten there for typographical reasons, it is still there because it's easier to teach, easier to use, more consistent and, despite what many Wikipedians seem to believe, it does not cause confusion or factual errors when used to quote text sources and has over a hundred-year track record to prove it.
	:::Misplaced Pages's system differs from British English in 1. its treatments of colons and semicolons and 2. its treatment of in-quotation periods that end complete sentences. ] (]) 15:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
	:::::The same old nonsense. All systems for English in practice treat colons, semicolons, question marks and exclamation marks in exactly the same way, which is also that used by other languages. The only practical difference between American and English/logical is that the former has a counter-intuitive special rule for commas and full stops. But of course, every additional rule that you can make people memorise makes it easier, right? ] ] 18:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
	::::::Adler, we had a whole big discussion about this. British and American English both place colons and semicolons outside and the current Misplaced Pages system can place them outside or inside depending on whether or not they're part of what's being quoted. Furthermore, the American system is not counterintuitive to people who've been raised to it any more than spelling "memorise" with an S instead of a Z is counterintuitive to people raised on the British system. ] (]) 18:38, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
	:::::::Frog, thanks for agreeing with what I said initially. (Except for the bit about colons and semicolons, where any differences occur so rarely that it's really not worth discussing. And the claim at ] that this difference even exists is still unsourced since I couldn't find a source when I tried to verify it.) ] ] 18:46, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
	::::::::Not sure what we agreed on, but you're welcome. And I did find a source about British treatment of colons and semicolons but it did take some doing to find and didn't turn up when I looked again. ] (]) 19:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
	:::: Wouldn't it be more accurate to say, rather than that "no consensus was reached about whether or not to place the note", that there was no consensus for you to place the note? If you make a change that causes a dispute, and the dispute results in no consensus, the page should default back to the way it was before you made the change. --] ] 16:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
	:::::I see that as pretty much what I said, LB. ] (]) 17:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
	::::::Well showing no consensus is an attempt to show their is consensus. Overall I really don't care which system is used (though calling it logical rather than modified Briitsh system seems to have been done so to bias in favor of the style after reading the long debate). The only really jarring thing for me is the double punctuation. FE: "Jack asked me to tell you "to pick up some bread?". From the phrase "Could you ask Jack to pick up some bread?"]]] 21:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
	:::::::Look it up with Google and Google Books. All sources talking about the British ''and'' logical systems, except for one that Darkfrog24 can't find any more, use the terms as synonyms. The double punctuation simply does not exist in any of the systems. It only ever appears in extremely technical contexts such as citing computer input, and it does not seem to have a name. In the discussion above one editor got this point wrong, made up an example with double full stop as "logical quotation", and was corrected imimediately. ] ] 21:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
	::::::::The issue at hand, Jinnai, is whether the Misplaced Pages MoS should explain that its system differs from standard British and American English. The matter of whether or not it should use this system in the first place is another. I don't mean to be terse, but we're more likely to make progress if we can keep the two matters separate. Hans, when the question was raised, last month, of why we were using a British system on American articles, the answer came back, "It's not British at all." How do PiZero and Finell weigh in on this? ] (]) 00:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
	:::::::::There ''were'' two issues, whether to change the MOS's position on quotation style, and, if logical style remains the position, whether to add an explicit statement that that style differs from both the British and American styles. I don't think either of these is an "issue" anymore. Not that there is no disagreement, that would be absurd — no matter what the MOS says or doesn't say, there will always be some people who disagree — but it seems pretty clear to me that there is no realistic prospect that there will be enough support at this time (i.e., mid-2009) for either of these changes to the MOS. The MOS will continue to recommend logical style, and will not discuss how logical style differs from other styles. Responsibility for explaining how logical style differs from other styles is delegated (rightly, IMO) to a mainspace article, explicitly by means of a link to ]. There ''was'' a problem with that mainspace article section, at the time that the extended discussion of quotation styles began here, in that the article section did not ''then'' explain clearly that logical quotation differs from the British style — but it explains this more clearly now than it did then, so to the extent that the unclarity there was motivating the proposal to add explanation in the MOS, that motivation does not currently exist (though a key passage about logical quotation in that article has a "citation needed" tag on it...). --] (]) 02:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
	:The on this matter particularly confuses me. I don't think either American or British English encourages the use of punctuation before a quotation that is used as part of a sentence like this. I move for reverting this. ] 08:06, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

	::That was just a mistake, and it was fixed. ] ] 18:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
	:::TL;DR. Voting is evil, my opinion is that the current system should remain the Misplaced Pages standard and the dispute box should be removed. Discussions as to differences in the various usages in various countries belong in mainspace articles which can be linked for reference. Hope that helps resolve this, . ], ] 23:26, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

	===New proposal===
	I would like to propose a change. We should remove the text, "It is used by Misplaced Pages both because of the principle of minimal change, and also because the method is less prone to misquotation, ambiguity, and the introduction of errors in subsequent editing." 1. It's unsourced. 2. It claims that other styles can create misquotation and introduce errors, which is not exactly true. If we're not going to explain the matter here, then we should keep the "logical quotation" wikilink and put the explanation in a place where information on the pros and cons of this policy can be provided in full detail. ] (]) 13:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

	:::: How about simply inserting into the existing phrasing, between the words "is less", the word "deemed", so that the sentence reads
	::::: It is used by Misplaced Pages both because of the principle of minimal change, and also because the method is deemed less prone to misquotation, ambiguity, and the introduction of errors in subsequent editing.
	:::: --] (]) 03:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
	:::::a side issue, but Darkfrog24's proposed "consensus among most editors" is redundant - what you want is either "the consensus among editors is" or "most editors agree".
	:::::meanwhile, i've been following this discussion for a while, and although i still see no compelling reason to change the original wording, i could go along with Pi zero's proposal if it satisfies others. one bit of finetuning, though: that "also" in the second clause is extraneous (in the current wording as well); it should say: "It is used by Misplaced Pages both because of the principle of minimal change, and <s>also</s> because the method is deemed less prone to misquotation, ambiguity and the introduction of errors in subsequent editing."

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

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

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

	::That you are an administrator, LB, is a fact, not a belief. Even if it weren't, the tone and positioning of your user page would make it clear that it was voicing your own opinions and assessments. And no, I don't think it's obvious. Just look at MChavez's opening comments from May. ] (]) 20:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
	::: Okay, let me frame my question differently. When a user arrives here looking for advice on style, for whatever reason, let's say they disagree with what's written, and they see a little note that there are other people who don't agree. What is your intent for them? That they now have an excuse to ignore the style guide? To what end? --] ] 20:15, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
	::::Quite the contrary. Phrasing the MoS in this way would 1. Make it clear that Misplaced Pages has chosen its own standard for use on Misplaced Pages, in the sense of, "With regard to other styles, do what you like, but don't do it here." 2. Make it clear that this third standard was not chosen in error (When MChavez showed up in May, he demonstrated that this is a real problem). 3. Make it clear that the virtues of this standard are neither a matter of proven fact nor a matter of mere opinion but the result of a reasonable consensus among Misplaced Pages editors, the same principle that applies to other Misplaced Pages articles. 4. Stop spreading misinformation about American and British standard styles. These first three things would increase fidelity to the MoS, not decrease it. The fourth is just responsible behavior on our part. ] (]) 20:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
	::::: All right, I agree with you in principle. I suspect some of the language in the MoS has been added in an attempt to codify it with some rationale other than "because consensus dictates"; case in point, the text you want to remove. Some time in the past, someone had the idea that we need to explain on the page why we are making our recommendations. --] ] 20:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
	:::::: Indeed, adding the word "deemed" as I've proposed would do all of those things (whereas the proposal before that, with the unprecedented explicit word "consensus" in it, would not do (2) or (3), and would trash the consensus to boot). --] (]) 02:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
	:::::::No, the word "deemed" alone would be insufficient to at the very least (2), (3) and (4) because it alone does not explain "by whom." "Deemed by Misplaced Pages" might do.
	:::::::It is no insult to call a Misplaced Pages consensus a Misplaced Pages consensus. It does not mean that it's "only an opinion"; it means that it is a matter reached by discussion among an assumed majority of the Misplaced Pages editors involved, in accordance with Misplaced Pages's values and policies. However, it does mean that it is not necessarily a fact, which is the problem with the current wording. ] (]) 02:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

	===Great Misplaced Pages Dramaout of 2009===
	How about we make a crossover between the two proposed systems:
	: The troll said “The quick brown fox shouldn't have jumped over the lazy dog”<span style="position:relative;left:-.35em;">.</span>
	Just so that everyone could be happy ... <b>]</b> <span style="color:#aaa">» ] »</span> 18:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
	:Huh? --<span style="background: white; color: blue; font-family: monospace">] di M.</span> – <span style="font-family: fantasy">]</span> 20:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
	::I think it's a joke. I liked it, it made me smile. But I wouldn't seriously support it. --] (]) 20:01, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
	:::No, Stpasha was trying to tell us about the Dramaout! ] It starts tomorrow. ] (]) 00:05, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
	:::But now that I notice it, the idea of putting periods underneath the quotation marks, while arguably impractical, does have some merit. We'd probably have to wait for the next generation of typographical systems, though (or for an apocalyptic event to blast us all back to the pen-and-paper age). ] (]) 00:08, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
	:::Ah! I hadn't noticed it... (Apparently my browser ignores negative margins.) Well, I often do something like that in casual handwriting, FWIW. (I hope this post doesn't count as drama, despite the page it's on. Anyway, this will be my only edit on this page during the Dramaout.) --<span style="background: white; color: blue; font-family: monospace">] di M.</span> – <span style="font-family: fantasy">]</span> 09:46, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
	:Should Misplaced Pages also start using ] simply because most English-speaking persons (do they?) prefer them over ] units? I say no.] ⇒ ] 05:48, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
	::Absolutely not, Dmyersturnbull, but 1. metric is an international system supported by almost the entire scientific community, while "logical quotation" is not and 2. Misplaced Pages supports the use of non-metric units where appropriate. Misplaced Pages should not put U.S. units in all articles but neither should Misplaced Pages adopt British spelling (or in this case, a spelling system designed for computer programming) for all articles. My take is that applying ENGVAR, replacing Misplaced Pages's current system with the appropriate British or American standards, would be best.] (]) 12:23, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

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

	::The problem with that quote is not the style of punctuation used but the fact that it becomes misleading if the second half is sliced off. This is just as possible under Misplaced Pages's current system. If I saw the text "At the debate, Mr. Smith said 'I am in favour of executions' to Ms. Jones" on Misplaced Pages, I would think it right and proper to rephrase it because of its content, even if the punctuation was perfect.
	::In the American system, it is understood that the period is there because it ends the sentence, not necessarily because it was part of the original material. ] (]) 19:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

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

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

	::::: Practice for almost a hundred and fifty years was under non-wiki conditions.
	::::: Darkfrog, if you define "misquotation" to exclude being wrong about what if any final punctuation occurs in the original, then (a) you've got a rather strange notion of "misquotation", and (b) you aren't addressing the choice of style. If "misquotation" includes getting the final punctuation wrong, then your statement about prone-ness of the American system is patently false.
	::::: Absolute certainty about the original only comes from consulting the original, and the circumstances of Misplaced Pages make for a much larger discrepancy (than has existed for most of the past hundred and fifty years) between the ease of editing and the difficulty of consulting the original source — all of which makes it especially important to minimize information degradation during ongoing evolution of Misplaced Pages articles. --] (]) 14:02, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

	::::::"But that has been a non-issue for almost a hundred and fifty years." Has it? In a hundred and fifty years this odd practice has never caused anyone any trouble? Can we verify that? If I'm free to add my own punctuation within the inverted commas, it's easier for me to misquote. Using this system, to which you cling to so dearly, so inexplicably, in spite of its flaws, which you would never admit, involves a loss of information. If you've got a loss of information, you've got an increase chance of misquotation. You note yourself that "If someone wants to know how the original was punctuated, then he or she must look at the original". Let's suppose the original were just a click away, it's still easier not to have to go clicking down originals. In general, of course, it's a lot more than a click. You're telling us that in one hundred and fifty years nobody has ever needed to go hunting down an original source just to find out whether a punctuation mark really belonged there or was just shoved there by a practice which has long outlived its once practical usefulness. ]<sub> ]·]</sub> 15:00, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
	:::::::::I can't believe this is ''still'' going on and on, Darkfrog. Jimp expresses very clearly why WP's practice, indeed, is utterly necessary to treat our sources with respect. It's deeply embedded in WP's ethics. ] ] 15:43, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

	:::''Can we verify that?'' Well I can't go through every last word written in American English, but you don't seem to be asking me to, so here's this:
	"In defense of nearly a century and a half of the American style, however, it may be said that it seems to have been working fairly well and has not resulted in serious miscommunication." —Chicago Manual of Style ] (]) 19:41, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

	{{Clear}}

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

	:: ] (]) 23:56, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

	:;(and I still put the em dash next to the word and the space after, but not on WP, which says otherwise. I (try to) follow its style when I am on WP, and follow my style when I am not. What do you do? ] (]) 23:56, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
	:::So do I. (To me, spaced em dashes appear to be more common in Europe and unspaced ones in America — but I have no source for that; the tells to space them, but with the rationale "o avoid errors if your dashes subsequently turn into hyphens as a result of document conversion".) WP allows to use spaced ''en'' dashes as em dashes, though, so I use that when possible. --<span style="background: white; color: blue; font-family: monospace">] di M.</span> 10:27, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

	=== Move to close ===
	This discussion has been lingering on for two months now, with no consensus for adding additional explanations and rhetoric about why the WP style is what it is. The damned page is still locked, preventing any reasonable progress on the rest of the MoS. I propose that the dispute tag be removed, and the text of WP:LQ remain in its original state. Any changes that attempt to add rhetoric about American vs. British systems, or additional rhetoric rationalizing the current style, should be considered to be against consensus. Then, we can mercifully have the page unlocked and get back to work. --] ] 18:01, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
	:As an uninvolved observer of the discussion's progress, I second this motion. ] (]) 18:06, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
	:Agreed that the consensus for either adding an explanation of Misplaced Pages's policy or for removing the misleading wording has not been reached. ] (]) 18:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
	:: I can't tell if that means you agree with the motion or not. --] ] 19:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
	:::I feel that, considering that there is no consensus for further changes, the text should remain in its ''current'' state. No consensus was reached for 1. adding more explanation or 2. removing the misleading text, but 3. changing the indicative to the imperative was properly proposed and implemented, so it should remain.
	:::As for the dispute tag, does Misplaced Pages have anything along the lines of "Caution: Dangerous waters! Consider discussing even small changes to this section ''before'' editing"? This is what I did with the change of the indicative to the imperative: WP's rules do not require that small changes be discussed ahead of time, and it looked like the sort of thing that no one would mind, but considering how contentious this part of the MoS is, I figured it might be a good idea to do it anyway. ] (]) 20:23, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

	The subject should be closed, with the result that there is no consensus to adopt any of the changes proposed in this discussion topic (that is, under the heading "Punctuation: Quotation marks: Inside or outside") or its immediate predecessors in the archives of this Talk page. The dispute tag should be removed from this section of the MoS. There should not be any special legend for this section of the MoS. Darkfrog: Please stop trying to confuse the matter with equivocation (like your first response to the motion to close) or by trying to single out this guideline, which you don't like, with a new tag or legend of your invention. ] ] 00:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
	:Easy, Finell. You seem to be projecting onto me motives that I do not have. It is hardly equivocation to say, "I agree that there is no consensus for point one or for point two." In addition, I'm not trying to invent a new tag; I am asking if such a tag already exists. ] (]) 04:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
	{{Archive bottom}} '''It is the wish of the current participants in this discussion that the above sections be archived. If you wish to discuss Misplaced Pages's policy on quotation marks or the text of the MoS with regard to this policy, then please start a new section, ''even if you are responding to something said in this thread.''''' ] (]) 14:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

	== Use of the article before the name of a ship ==		== Use of the article before the name of a ship ==

Revision as of 16:38, 4 August 2009

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Manual of Style page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Shortcut

WT:MOS

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228Auto-archiving period: 10 days

Manual of Style

	This page falls within the scope of the Misplaced Pages: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
	This page falls under the contentious topics procedure and is given additional attention, as it closely associated to the English Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages policies of Misplaced Pages's policy and guideline documents is available, offering valuable insights and recommendations.

editSee also
Misplaced Pages talk:Writing better articles
Misplaced Pages talk:Article titles
Misplaced Pages talk:Quotations
Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)
Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/quotation and punctuation

Use of the article before the name of a ship

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

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

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

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

As to the names of American Navy ships, I can tell you that there doesn't appear to be consistancy as to the inclusion of 'the' when referring to a ship. Navy ships are often referred to just by name, without stating 'USS', but I've heard some sailors (and ex-sailors) say "the Midway" while others just say "Midway". Personally, I prefer to not use 'the', I think it personifies a ship more. After all, you wouldn't refer to your girlfriend as "the Jennifer" . . . or would you? OLEF641 (talk) 09:52, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I'm quite sure there isn't any consistent usage. I think if one is stating the official name of the ship, then one should try and find out whether the definite article is part of the official name. However, in other references to the ship, I think it is acceptable to either leave out the The or retain it, depending on what suits the sentence best. Here's a twist, though – what if the definite article is in another language, e.g., what if the ship is named La Traviata? Should it be referred to "the La Traviata" or "the Traviata"? Hopefully this problem won't happen often. — Cheers, JackLee 19:47, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello, again. Found this in the Misplaced Pages article "Ship prefix":

"Note that while calling a US ship "the USS Flattop" may make grammatical sense, the preliminary article "the" is discouraged by nearly all style guides, and the U.S. Navy. The U.S. Navy uses ship names without article, except for USS The Sullivans, named for the five Sullivan brothers, all lost at sea during World War II. Its British equivalent ("the HMS Flattop") is also discouraged, since "the Her Majesty's Ship" would be grammatically incorrect."

I agree that there are times that use of an article makes for less awkward phrasing, c.f. "Raise the Titanic!" above.

As for doubled articles, here in Los Angeles, we have a famous landmark usually referred to as "The La Brea Tar Pits". For those of you who don't read Spanish, this is literally "The The Tar Tar Pits" -- say it rhythmically with a kick at the end and you get a great conga lyric, but I digress ;-) OLEF641 (talk) 00:47, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I am trying to summarize what may have been said: 1. There is no article before the name of a ship (xxx) when it is grammatically incorrect (example: "HMS xxx", never "the HMS xxx"), 2. It seems to be customary to omit the article before the name of ship of the US Navy at least in official use (I agree with OLEF642 that sailors use the article, i.e. "I served on the Lexington"), thus "USS xxx" may be preferable over "the USS xxx". 3. Otherwise it appears that the article is generally used, thus "the Santa Maria", "the Pequod", "the Titanic", etc. The article is, of course, always included when part of the name. Is this correct? Ekem (talk) 03:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I generally omit the definite article when referring to a ship by name, with the exception of when there is a qualifier before it (ex: "The Japanese signed the official surrender document on the battleshipMissouri..." but "Prince of Wales sank after having been torpedoed several times..."). The way I see it is the ships are given names; you wouldn't say "the Jeff went to the grocery store" (and if you do, you sound like a pretentious idiot, but I digress). That's just my 2 cents. Parsecboy (talk) 23:02, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

The comment by Parsecboy sums up my view as well. I previously added a request for comments here to the WT:SHIPS page. Sswonk (talk) 23:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Parsec took the works right out of my mouth. —Ed (Talk • Say no to drama) 03:15, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Yep; The Parsecboy is correct ;) Ian Toll's Six Frigates is an excellent book but he uses 'the' before every ship name which needless to say drives The Brad insane. --Brad (talk) 12:32, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

According to the under "ship names," "Do not use 'the' in front of a ship's name: 'USS San Jose,' not 'the USS San Jose.' " Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:44, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Another source, The Guardian (UK) Style Guide, uses the phrase "mariners shun the definite article" when talking about ships. An observation I personally might add is that the confusion may stem from the concept of ships as structures, as with "the Empire State Building" or "the Brooklyn Bridge". This use of the definite article is different because the structure name is in the form adjective-noun, building or bridge being the noun. Ships, to me, are not unlike thoroughbreds in that the name is a proper name like "Secretariat" or "Man o' War" (!) although the ship name has often had "the" added by writers in the past because of the confusion with buildings. Therefor, I would say that the above summation by Ekem is wrong on the third point, it should be "the article is generally not used" with the PDF I'm linking above providing a further explanation (under the "Military tendency" heading). Sswonk (talk) 14:56, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I think a global rule on the use of the definite article would be a mistake. For instance, I would never say "I got seasick a once while riding James." when I meant "I got seasick once while riding the James." FWIW, in day-to-day operations, the only time I don't use "the" before my ship's name is on the radio, for example i.e. "Suez Pilots, this is Fredericksburg," but "The Fredericksburg was a deathtrap." and "I'm so glad we scrapped the Fredericksburg." Examples on both sides go back at least as far as the Argo. Cheers. Haus 04:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

There are strong examples for the use of the article and it will be hard to ignore Melville, Conrad, O'Brian or the New York Times (i.e. ). This is a nice observation of the dual use, though, and I concur (personal observation) the article is omitted on the ship radio, yet when talking about a boating experience the article tends to be used. Checking on cruise ships, companies refer to their ships without article (at least the two lines I looked at), but people would say "we went on the xxx" when talking about their cruise ship. So, is there a distinction between a "mariner/operational use" and a "literary/general use" - I am struggling with these terms but throw them out here to help us move forward - ? Ekem (talk) 13:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Certainly it seems that when the ship is personified or being portrayed as an active agent (as in, for example, when it is the ship herself that is figuratively making a radio call), omission of the article is much more common than in other situations. Powers 14:50, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

All very good points. One of my motivations to make the suggestion above, "the article is generally not used", was that "the" isn't used in a lot of the articles (this can be dangerous i.e. Article (grammar) vs. Article (publishing)) in WP:SHIPS that are FAs, see USS Constitution and SS Kroonland. Another good example might be Vasa (ship) where "the" is used sparingly (once) when talking about the ship but multiple times when talking about books, a museum, in the map and so on. So if a standard isn't spelled out properly I would fear having to chase down edits to these and other articles where the well meaning editor decides all of the mentions of the ship need to have a definite article. Sswonk (talk) 15:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying here, it does not matter what may be the correct answer as we moved already into the "no article" version?Ekem (talk) 01:46, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

No, that wasn't me saying it doesn't matter. I wrote about FAs under the scope of the WP:SHIPS project and also the very good and careful eyes of many of its members. What I meant to convey there was that these articles have passed our highest form of vetting and stand as good examples. There are also the examples of the two published style guides cited and the comments I and other editors provided above. The problem is popular usage, which sometimes represents a different standard than what is correct. This happens with subjunctive (also see) mood verbs: "I wish I were going to the park" is correct for formal writing but "I wish I was going to the park" though incorrect is often found in popular usage. Judging by Google hits, "was" is more common by a wide margin: searching the exact string "I wish I were" produces 3.6+ million hits while "I wish I was" produces 16.1+ million hits. The same might be true here. So I would absolutely not say "the article is generally used"; in spite of the usage in novels (not formal writing, possibly in character etc.) and the New York Times (anecdotal examples), the other examples show a strong preference for the proper name style among mariners and people here who write about ships. Presenting both versions with explanation in this style guide might be possible, but ultimately pointless, as I don't think we are going to be able to say either form is truly correct or even "generally used". Sswonk (talk) 05:03, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I respect people who are writing here immensely, but -just on their own- they are not reference points for style. I would think that reference points are literature, popular use, style books, and major newspapers (this includes the New York Times - the Times also writes about "the USS Ronald Reagan" - and the Times' use of the article has been consistent over time and (print)space, not "anecdotal"). It appears to me that the omission of the article is seen primarily in writings by mariners and in some recent mariner literature. Ekem (talk) 01:54, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

To clarify, I used the word "anecdotal" to describe the use of random example articles to show usage in the Times as opposed to use of an entry in the Times official style book, if such an entry has existed at any point in time. Of course I did the same thing with the example FAs, it is just a distinction of the source of the information that I was making. Sswonk (talk) 13:13, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Diacritics - Use if unsourced?

I know the diacritic thing has been done to death, but let me pose this question:

Should diacritics be allowed if the word/name with diacritics in question is never used in English media?

This is an ongoing issue with the hockey article I edit. There are a couple of die-hards who use the 'ignore all rules' protocol to constantly revert all changes so that all Czech, Swedish, Slovak, Latvian, etc. names have diacritics regardless of popular usage or even any usage at all. --Львівске (talk) 21:09, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

The MoS is clear on this issue—see Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (use English), specifically:

"Use the most commonly used English version of the name of the subject as the title of the article, as you would find it in verifiable reliable sources"
"Names not originally in a Latin alphabet, as with Greek, Chinese or Russian, must be transliterated into characters generally intelligible to literate speakers of English."

Seems cut-and-dried to me, but I'm also aware that people enjoy introducing nationalism into this debate as seems to be the case from reading the Talk page of Talk:Sandis Ozoliņš. --Laser brain (talk) 21:17, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it seemed pretty cut and dry to me and I made my case on WT:Hockey but the user, DJSasso, just watches every player and reverts any diacritic changes regardless of the rules, citing WP:IAR, WP:BOLD, etc.

Sandis Ozolinsh is a good example...though a user recently reverted it back to the Latvian language. How how about a guy like Jaromir Jagr? His name, "Jagr" has been spelled as such his entire, well documented, career. Why should Misplaced Pages be the only source in the world using diacritics on his name? How about Peter Statsny? Why should his surname be spelled differently than his sons, because he was born in Slovakia and they the US?

In keeping with Latvians, even the Dinamo Riga (their top team) website (english version) keeps diacritics out,link, yet the wiki page and roster insists on using them.

I'm not against diacritics. They have their place (see: Häagen-Dazs, Brüno) when they have common use. But is there no recourse or solution to this? Or just endless edit wars of those who follow the rules vs. nationalists?--Львівске (talk) 21:47, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't really know what to tell you about the hockey project. My understanding was that they had developed a consensus to use diacritics, but you are making it sound like it is one editor. Which is accurate? I don't happen to agree with them, but I'm not really motivated to do battle about it. It does seem a bit odd when you explain it they way you've presented it. --Laser brain (talk) 02:43, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I am just reverting to the consensus the hockey project has come to. If you have an issue with the situation by all means get the consensus to change. More than just me told you that the hockey project has come to a consensus on how the naming works so don't go saying I watch every page and just readd them, I also remove them on the pages that the hockey project has deemed they should be removed on. And I must admit I find it funny you would imply I am a nationalist since I do not come from nor am I descended from any country that uses them. I am about as English you can get. Also there have been basically zero edit wars on this subject in about a year and a half until you started arguing the issue. -Djsasso (talk) 03:02, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I didn't imply you were a nationalist, that was about the Latvian editors. You certainly seem to defend their cause, though. As far as consensus goes, that doesn't seem to be the case as I've seen it. As GoodDay described the situation to me, it was more of a "hostile takeover" to the point where one can't keep up with the edits to keep them without, as these editors have taken ownership of the language on the articles in question. Regardless, I don't see how the consensus of a handful of people on the hockey WP overrules WP:BIO and WP:MOS basic style and form. Common use trumps the selective use of editors pushing an agenda.--Львівске (talk) 03:23, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Hockey isn't actually the only sport that uses them. The problem is that all across this wiki are some projects that use them and some projects that don't use them. I personally believe using them still complies with "Use English". I don't think adding them stops the word from being English. I do however find removing them to be a misspelling and an insult to the individual. I don't believe that[REDACTED] should perpetuate the mistakes that other mediums make. GoodDay is probably the least reliable person to listen too, even editors that agree with his opinion that no diacritics should used say he gets a bit to insane on the issue. Basically the story you got was from the most extremist of the "removal" side of the debate. There was a relatively large number of people who agree on the current situation to stop the edit was, because the addition of them and removal of them mostly come from IP editors and people like GoodDay were waring with them up to 30 or 40 edits and the only way to get it to stop was to come to this compromise. The only time I actually add or remove them is when someone who knows the consensus blatantly ignores it. I have always been of the opinion that people should use the ENGVAR version of dealing with them, "use what was originally there", so if you come to a page and they are there leave them...if you come to a page that they aren't there then don't add them. -Djsasso (talk) 03:46, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Anit-diacritics extremist, me? Yep. Un-reliable? that's for each to decide. The WP:HOCKEY compromise? a joke (concerning the Quebec articles & NHL player's birthplaces). GoodDay (talk) 18:15, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

To get back to the question. The consensus of the hockey project is to use diacritics on players own articles. Players names are present both in North American English media AND in international media. You would expect to find the name in diacritics on an European web site. The consensus of the hockey project on North American league articles is to NOT use diacritics by and large, because those articles are North American in scope and you see players' names in print and media commonly. The hockey project allows place-names with diacritics on league articles. I believe this is explained that the names don't have an English common usage and the various leagues just ignore them, so we have no reliable source for a translation. So, by and large, we are following the rules and we are putting forth a valid compromise. You can tell because no-one is perfectly placated. :-) Alaney2k (talk) 21:07, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, but what European (English-written) sources use diacritics? The IIHF doesn't, EuroHockey.net doesn't...Shouldn't we be following the NHL, IIHF, KHL, and other league/team/official sources on this? This isn't the Esperanto Wiki... --Львівске (talk) 22:26, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Nor is it Simple Wiki. —Krm500 22:45, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

This isn't going to get solved here, because it's clear that wider input is needed. Львівске, if you would like to see if there is a shift in consensus on this issue, I suggest opening an RFC at the hockey project. --Andy Walsh (talk) 22:40, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The editors who put those diacritics in can answer the question. The main point, I think, is that in Europe it would not be uncommon to use diacritics, as we all know. Alaney2k (talk) 22:47, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

That's simply not true.--Львівске (talk) 22:55, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

We'll agree to disagree then. Ask the Swedish editors in wp:hockey. They're able to find links in English quite quickly when the debate rages... Alaney2k (talk) 23:17, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

He is correct, we quite regularly find references using diacritics in english when this debate comes up. -Djsasso (talk) 15:03, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

If it were up to me, all diacritics would be eliminated from Hockey related articles. Which of course, doesn't surprise anyone. GoodDay (talk) 22:57, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

You can't just impose your will, as I've learned. As I figure it, if it completely satisfies no-one, then it's just about the right compromise. Everyone has their opinion of what is the right way on things like this. I think this pops up in every wt:hockey archive. Anyway, the eds who put them in have found references. Maybe we could impose a policy of prove it. But I think the dio eds would prove it. Do we have to count up the references? Do we have to count up the paper media references? Alaney2k (talk) 23:17, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The best I can hope for (these days), is that the dios remain off the NHL template roster's player names. GoodDay (talk) 23:21, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Wait, let's get back to the original question. Is it really settled convention for the hockey project that diacritics be used no matter what? If there are no English-language sources that use the diacritics, how can we justifiably use them? Powers 15:49, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

To answer the question, no, there is no settled convention. Right now it's just a "compromise" to allow player bios to have them (re: too hard to keep reverting the changes) but bar them from team pages. This discussion is ongoing at the WP, but it seems regardless a good proposal to follow logic and wiki rules, it's fought with people pushing their own opinion-based POV and the WP:IAR and WP:BOLD proposals.--Львівське (talk) 16:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Punctuation: Quotation marks: “regular” vs. "straight"

I would like to re-open for deliberation the long-standing issue of regular (or “typographical”, or “curly”) quotes, versus the upright (or "typewriter", or "straight") quotes.

The issue has a long history. Apparently it originated in an “omnibus bill” of Archive 3, where it didn’t get much of attention because people were more bothered with British vs. American location of punctuation, and attracted by Hawaii. The real discussion started only in archives 18 and 19, where no consensus has been reached and therefore the recommendation of which quotes ought to be preferred had to have been removed (although it wasn’t). In later years the discussion has been revisited many times: see archives 94, 100, 103, 104, 108). So why am I beating the dead horse then and pester the community about this question once again? Well, it just so happens that as time goes by, the arguments in favor of regular quotes become stronger, while the arguments in favor of typewriter quotes fade, so by the intermediate value theorem there’s bound to be such moment in time when we’ll change the policy regarding this issue. So the purpose of this discussion is to find out whether such momement is already at hand.

In order to save the time and effort of many people who are interested in this discussion, I’ll try to give my overview of the past discussions (the overview will probably be slightly biased, but then bias is sometimes even welcome).

Basically, there are two major camps of thought here:

Pro-choice: people who believe that it is editor’s right to make a choice between the curly and straight quotes, and the official MoS ought not to declare the former as deprecated; and
Pro-life: people who believe that those in the first camp have to get a life and stop revisiting this issue over and over and over again...

I’ll try to list the major arguments and counter-arguments for both sides, it will (hopefully) help to avoid the unnecessary repititions in the follow-up.

Pro-choice

N	Argument	Rebuttal
C1	Curly quotes look aesthetically more pleasing.	Depends on the platform, and in any case beauty is in the eye of the beholder. On Netscape 4.7 browser for example curlies look quite ugly.
C2	Curly quotes are the only typographically correct symbols to denote quotation; any printed book will serve as a proof of this fact, the Unicode standard strongly recommends them too.	Computer screens are different from printed material.
C3	Curly quotes look aesthetically more pleasing.	That’s C1 repeated again.
C4	Curly quotes allow for easier understanding of the material. After all Misplaced Pages must be for the benefit of the reader, not the editor.	This benefit is actually quite miniscule.
C5	Articles formatted with curly quotes look more respectable and professional.
C6	If browser compatibility is the concern, then it is possible to add a user preference to convert all curly quotes into regular ones on the fly when sending the page to a user with such an option turned on. It cannot work in the opposite direction though.
C7	There is no single reason to forbid the editors to use curly quotes if they’d like to.	Lots of reasons, see the Pro-life section.
C8	Curly quotes, or indeed any quotes which have different opening and closing glyph, are capable to delimit the quotation unambiguously from computer's standpoint. It means for example that a text reader for blind people will be able to understand “hello” and render it as a quotation, but not the "hello".

Pro-life

N	Argument	Rebuttal
L1	Curly quotes are not on the standard keyboard so they are difficult to type.	Misplaced Pages is for the benefit of reader, not the editor. Every single rule in MoS makes editors’ life more difficult while readers’ comprehension better. The curly quotes should not be exception. Besides, there are easy keystrokes on Mac, Linux, and some Windows platforms to produce such characters; if your computer is missing their support then you might want to reconfigure it.
L2	Legacy browsers may not recognize such quotes and render them as square boxes or worse.	Curly quotes pose no more challenge to the browser than already widespread symbols of m-dash, n-dash, extended Latin, Greek, etc. See also C6
L3	Curly quotes cause problems with search function.	This one is entirely made-up. All search engines strip down punctuation from their search strings anyways. Besides there’s no real reason one would want to search for a string with quotation marks in it... And no, let’s not discuss apostrophes here.
L4	Curly quotes present problems with in-browser search function.	People hardly ever search for quotation marks anyways. No I mean: really, do they? Also modern browsers are (or should be) capable of performing search which does not discriminate between curly and regular quotes.
L5	Straight quotes are a “long established consensus”, there is no real reason to change it.	Actually it was never a consensus, the issue was disputed over the years. As for the reasons, see C1-C8.
L6	I hate those curly things, I'm not going to tolerate them!!!	(Yes this was indeed brought up as an argument on several occasions). Luckily, Misplaced Pages is a community. Nobody expects a colorblind person to contribute pictures; nobody expects a non-native English speaker to produce a perfect prose; nobody expects a person unable to appreciate the beauty of professionally typeset text to produce such a text. Chill.
L7	Curlies might have been common in the `old times`, but nowadays straight quotes are perfectly acceptable.	They might be acceptable in a text which is designed for only a handful of readers: an e-mail, or a blog; however when the potential audience is large the text must meet a higher standard of quality, which includes the use of “correct” quotes. And even when something is widespread (0MG!!! (00!_ !_()L) does not necessarily mean we should use it.
L8	Curly quotes are difficult to type.	That's repetition of L1. Oh and incidentally, this is exactly what the «"» is good for: —"— to indicate repetition of the previous line.

Discussion

So let the discussion begin. I will add from myself the following: it appears that all the arguments in favor of curly quotes work best with better computers, better monitors, etc; at the same time most of arguments against the curlies emphasize problems with ancient computer systems. This is a crucial point: the monitors slowly upgrade their quality and are able to pack more and more pixels per square inch, while old computers slowly go out of use. It means the monitors will eventually reach the point when the quality of on-screen display will match that of the printed copy. At that point it will be already obvious that curly quotes are vastly superior; however due to continuity of the process the actual “switch” point when it becomes beneficial to use curlies will happen much earlier, maybe it happened already.

Oh and while we're at it, we might also touch the issue of implementing the hanging punctuation, i don't think it has ever been discussed here. ... stpasha » talk » 05:02, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the bigger question is should we italicize quotes, i.e. "Hello" vs. "Hello". To me, the former is more aesthetically pleasing :). — CRAZY`(lN)`SANE (talk • contribs) 05:09, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

This is indeed a bigger question, not quite within the current topic. However it appears to me that we'd run into the problems once the quote spans several sentences or even paragraphs. Too many of italic text will defeat the entire purpose of italicizing. Maybe use color, like “Hello”? ... stpasha » talk » 05:24, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Point taken, I would perhaps be in favor of using italicized quotes sparingly, in a quote of perhaps no more than one sentence. Also, songs, which are always placed in quotation marks, could be italicized. I'm not sure what I think about your color idea though, I think it would be too unprofessional-looking and messy. — CRAZY`(lN)`SANE (talk • contribs) 05:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

No on italic quotes. Italics are more difficult to read, and jarring to the eye. There's a reason that italicing quotes isn't standard practice. And songs are always in quote marks because they are short-form works or portions of long-form works, like poems, short stories, magazine articles and episodes of television series. Italics would imply that a single song is long-form like an album. oknazevad (talk) 07:55, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

No, please don't use color. It is harmful for visually impaired users, either those using text-to-speech browsers or those who, for example, simply have colorblindness or work in poor light environments. Try to keep the article as plain as possible, that always has seemed to be the WP way.

Of course use of color can be good (e.g. in images) but color should never be used as the sole basis of distinguishing information.

For similar reasons I prefer straight quotes as I know they work better over a broader range of browsers, even if my particular browser does quite a nice job of quotes. Ideally I think there would be recommendation to use a template for inline quotations; then all discussion could be hoist out of MoS into the template talk page, though (like with MOSNUM and {{convert}}) the two would tend to walk in lockstep.

Having not really bothered with this discussion page before, I now find myself less, not more confident in MoS. If it is always being changed, any article I write or revise will almost inevitably not conform to MoS, within a matter of days. That does not help MoS. The rule to me would simply be that of consistency: use straight quotes or curly quotes as you prefer, but use them consistently throughout the article.

BTW "minuscule" is so spelt (not "miniscule").

best wishes SimonTrew (talk) 07:21, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Simon here, color is a poor choice to distinguish one type of text from another. I disagree with the spelling of miniscule vs minuscule, though. Both are acceptable spellings. See here: oknazevad (talk) 07:47, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Right now, raising the question of curly quotes is futile. Instead, people might usefully focus on the fact that the page is blocked for editing. A disgrace. With goodwill and focus, that problem could be solved. Until it is solved, why bring up a matter that is guaranteed to waste vast resources in time and attention, when in the unlikely event that consensus is achieved the page cannot even be edited to incorporate the changes? Not without calling on an admin, that is. Shame!

In any case, the arguments to and fro above, as stpasha presents them, are incomplete. Take two examples:

1. Searching within any current browser for curly quotes (or apostrophes, of which there is no mention) will find only the curly variant; searching for straight ones will find only the straight variant. This makes editing a real pain. The same would apply in many separate editing applications that some of us use. Having curly quotes that most users can't type in thwarts their searches within a browser, also. So much for looking after the needs of those who consult Misplaced Pages.

2. It is easy to find printed books that use not curly quotes (or "directed quotes", as they have been called) but quotes that lean to the right – the same for left and right.

Get the facts right, stpasha, rather than complicating things with cute repetitions in what purports to be a rational tabulation of the arguments. Or better, put your energy into addressing the bigger picture: the problems that perennially beset this page, and have now left it locked for weeks because of two or three editors' intransigence.

I'm inclined to stay away until that's sorted out, myself. I've had my share of futile discussion over MOS, in which glaring faults and inconsistencies have lingered for months without people so much as noticing, let alone maintaining quality with good housekeeping. If I do rejoin discussion here, I'll want to see some intelligent treatment of several other overarching issues, before we are at all ready for details such as stpasha raises yet again.

–_⊥Noetica!– 06:02, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Just because the page is blocked for editing doesn't mean that we can't or shouldn't discuss other things. Edits have been discussed and made during this time. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:15, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

To take the part of Noetica's post that is strictly relevant to the curly/straight issue—that "the arguments are incomplete", with "two examples:

2. It is easy to find printed books that use not curly quotes (or "directed quotes", as they have been called) but quotes that lean to the right – the same for left and right."

I agree entirely. Tony (talk) 10:36, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I believe that we should take aesthetics out of this discussion. Straight quotes look prettier to some people and curly quotes to others. Aesthetics has no logical weight on its own. If there were an overwhelming wave of people who felt one way or the other, then we would be right to take aesthetics into account despite this, but I don't think that's the case here.

Stpasha raises an excellent point that one day many of the compatibility arguments in favor of straight quotes will become obsolete. It is not my opinion that that day has come. Not everyone who reads the English Misplaced Pages lives in a country where newer computers are common. Misplaced Pages must serve those readers as well. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:15, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree, I missed that argument (I did read all the archives linked at the beginning of the post, although haven't found strength to re-read them second time when summarizing). If nobody minds I'll update the list to include it. And certainly the counter-argument against the in-browser search function are two-fold: first, it is nearly impossible to imagine a real-life situation where one would want to search for quotation marks (though apostrophes problems are pretty common). But then you'd have exactly the same problem if you'd try to search for "Gauss–Markov theorem" for example (note the n-dash). An intelligent in-browser search engine must take into account unicode equivalent classes when performing the search (so that ’=‘=′=', and “=”=″="=«=»=etc...), and also attempt to guess common word modifications using the dictionary (such as Canada=Canadian=etc; this problem gets much more complicated in other languages). The problem with quotes is of minor importance compared for example to the problem with dashes or apostrophes...

As for "straight quotes look pretier to some while curlies to others" -- that is certainly true. However it is quite an established fact in typography industry that in printed text curlies do look better (the fact that the majority of modern books use them serves as an indirect proof). The major difference between printed text and monitors is that the latter has less DPI. Which means that as techonology progresses, eventually DPI of the monitors will be sufficiently high that curlies will look unequivocally better. Of course that moment won't bang on our front door and say "I AM COME", at which point we'll hastily run up to our computers and fix all the 10+ million[REDACTED] articles in a jiff. Instead we have to recognize the fact that the moment is indeed coming and start working towards meeting it, before it's too late :)

And Darkfrog, I'm afraid we can't "leave aesthetics out of this" -- that's the basepoint of all arguments in favor of curlies. Aesthetics is indeed important, in fact the purpose of entire MoS is aesthetics (that is, a text which violates every single point of MoS will probably be still understandable only rather unpleasant to read). And the reason why we value aesthetics so much is because it is paramount to conveying the information to the reader. How many times has it been in the history of science that publications remained unnoticed because they were too vague or obscure? How many theorems and methods do not bear the name of their inventor simply because somebody else had to popularize them? ... stpasha » talk » 15:58, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

One thought that comes to my mind on this, is that we should account for the possibility that reader's expectations may have changed. While Stpashal is correct that printed material typically uses curly quotes, he's also correct that, until recently, computer monitors have largely not used them. With the increase in importance and prevalance of digital text, there are likely a great many readers who consider straight quotes to be the norm.

Also, as for the "proven better" arguememt, I don't believe such a claim can be made. The prevalance of curly quotes in one form, print, does not make them inherently superior. The arguememt could be made that the universal nature of straight quotes, that is to say they're the same symbol, regarless of on which side of the quote they appear, makes them a more useful and practical choice, and a simpler, easier to understand system that requires fewer resources. Indeed, that may very well be the reason they were selected in the early days of computing.

Technological advances have rendered these arguememt less compeling, but that goes back to the first point, that while no longer neccessary, the norm of straight quotes in modern digital text has become established in the meantime. oknazevad (talk) 19:13, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I must correct you on one point, StPasha. The MoS is not about what is aesthetically pleasing but about what is correct. There are plenty of people who'd think that capitalizing words like "North," "Summer," and "West" would look better, but it is not proper to do so, so the MoS advises against it. When I say that we should take aesthetics out of the discussion of curly vs. straight quotes, I mean that we should look at what is right, not what is beautiful.

I agree wholeheartedly that the prevalence of curly quotes in print should not be taken as proof of their superiority over straight quotes in all media. There are any number of reasons why formal printed media prefer curly quotes. I do seem to recall hearing something about curly quotes being easier to track on a page, but even if I remember correctly, reading off a monitor is a different experience. With a monitor, the light source is/is behind the text and with a printed page it's behind the reader. (I do specifically recall hearing that fonts with bars are easier to read in print and fonts without them, such as Arial, are easier to read on screens.) Has any research been done to see whether there is some evidence of curly or straight quotes being literally easier on the eyes on a glowing screen? Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:10, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Historic remark: in the days of pre-computer era typewriters were designed so that to have the least amount of keys possible. Each extra key would have meant additional complicated mechanics, and would increase the possibility of clashes (that is when 2 of the keys were pressed in a quick succession one of the strikers may not have been able to return to its position yet and they jam). It also means that typewriter's keyboard was designed in such a way to make keys that are frequently pressed in succession (such as s+h, t+h, etc) to be pretty far away. When computers came they adopted typewriters keyboards in order to economize on the cost of re-training the typists. There is a sufficient evidence for example that Dvorak keyboard layout would have been better to use, but it's already too hard to switch now. Anyways, that's why we're stuck with keyboards that have straight quotes on them. And yes, they do require fewer resources (which was an important point in the epoch of ASCII, but certainly not now).

Regarding the monitor vs. printed media. It is indeed true that many web-designers advocate for the use of sans-serif fonts for screen media. The reason is again the DPI: when output DPI is high, serifs serve as a kind of guideline, allowing the person to follow the line of text more easily. When the DPI is low however, serif marks become more of an obstruction, making it more difficult to recognize the glyph's shape. I would hazard a guess that again, as technology progresses, we'll see more and more serif fonts on the web until one day they become prevalent.

As for the “proof”, I'd really like to see one myself. I mean alright, there is a LaTEX guide (LATEX is used for creating both PDFs and printed documents, maybe with more emphasis on the latter) which says that "straight" quotes must not be used without giving any references as to why is it so (well, Donald Knuth is an authority). Manuals for web-design also stress the importance of using curlies (for example here, or here). ... stpasha » talk » 00:28, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

As I predicted. Yet another tedious iteration of discussion we are not ready for. And as always when this topic comes up, failure to adduce evidence of how users really interact with Misplaced Pages, and failure to deal with issues that have long been on the table.

Browsers have a search facility for a reason. You may assert that users don't need to search for quote marks displayed by their browsers. But assertion is one thing; evidence another.

Confront this long-established fact too, for a change: Misplaced Pages's own search facility treats curly quotes and straight quotes differently. Go on: actually investigate, instead of theorising on empty. Enter “Hole saw” and see what you get; then enter "Hole saw" and see what you get.

Contrived a sophistical argument that you imagine will dismiss that hard reality yet? OK, now try searching on Cayley's theorem, followed by Cayley’s theorem. Then think. Think hard.

The ground assumptions behind these blinkered tinkerings cry out for attention. Meanwhile, to Darkfrog: May we have a progress report? I mean, on your continuing efforts to overcome the current block on MOS, brought on by your actions several weeks ago?

–_⊥Noetica!– 22:26, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

It's good to encourage people to get their facts straight. If you look at the page history, Noetica, you will see that the MoS was blocked because of an edit war in which I did not participate. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:56, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes Darkfrog, it is indeed good for us all to get facts straight. I would encourage people to look at edits on and around 30 May 2009 in WP:MOS, to see who, by several non-consensual edits and reversions, introduced instability in the quotations guideline. I said, with all caution, "brought on by your actions". Whatever technical excuse you may pretend to find, I'm sure others would still like an answer to my question, trimmed to its essentials: "May we have a progress report? I mean, on your continuing efforts to overcome the current block on MOS ?" You cannot deny that you were centrally involved, except by transparent evasive manoeuvres.

–_⊥Noetica!– 03:11, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Very well then. No you may not. It is not my or any other editor's responsibility to report to you or to anyone else on Misplaced Pages. Nor is it necessary; the entire discussion is available on this page and in the archives if you want a look at it or join in. Judging by the fact that you have directed your request at me and not at any of the other people who have participated in said discussion, not even the ones who, unlike myself, were actually involved in the conflict that directly precipitated the current blocking, I must interpret your request as a personal attack on myself. Please stop now. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:25, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying your attitude, Darkfrog. Let me clarify mine in return. I am not interested in attacking you, nor have I done so. I asked you to explain something; and you have refused to do so. I accept that as your choice. If you don't want to account for your actions and inactions, fine. You are under no compulsion. You are not responsible, to me or anyone else. Very well.

Nevertheless, I identify your well-documented actions on and after 30 May 2009 as a major factor leading to the present impasse at MOS; and I am surprised that you show no interest in doing anything about it. You are entitled not to do anything about it; and I am entitled to be surprised at that attitude. If you say that others are responsible for the impasse, I hope you will join me in asking what they are doing about it, since the impasse is a far more pressing and immediate problem than this re-stirring of an old pot. I note that you too, below, are re-hashing yet again the same tired arguments that we have been through before. Let me say quite clearly: you are entitled to do so, even if I think it is a complete waste of everyone's time. Good luck!

–_⊥Noetica!– 05:20, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I didn't have to ask them. The matter was discussed on this page weeks ago. It's in the archives. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:53, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Please explain, Darkfrog. I said: "I hope you will join me in asking what they are doing about it." Presumably prompted by that, you said: "I didn't have to ask them. The matter was discussed on this page weeks ago. It's in the archives."

¿Qué? I am interested in what people (you, and the others involved) are doing now, to fix the problem with MOS. It is locked for editing. How's the program for fixing that coming along? It is mystifying: to refer to the archives for a current problem, yet to rehearse again and again these tired old discussions of a subordinate issue, repeating afresh all the follies of the past that are themselves recorded in the archives! Since you are determined not to do anything about the present and continuing results of your disruption of seven weeks ago, I'll not persist. I'll just wait for those responsible to fix the problem they have brought on.

Dwell on what lesser matter you will. But don't dismiss my reasonable and weighty question with inconsistencies and irrelevancies, as if I had done something damaging to our work at MOS, or wasted time here.

–_⊥Noetica!– 00:33, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Whoah! That's a really cool example. Now you probably have noticed that there is a page on Misplaced Pages called «“hole saw”» (which redirects to Drill Bit), so that when you enter «“Hole saw”» in the browser it somehow converts capital H into small h and makes the match. There is also a different article in Misplaced Pages called «Hole saw», so that when you enter «"Hole saw"» into the search string the quotation marks get stripped and the match is performed. Now if you think about it a little, you would probably come to the conclusion that curly quotation marks are actually the ones compatible with search function, while straight quotes are not. Simply because you can search for curly quotes, whereas straight quotes get removed from the search string.

Now regarding the «Cayley's theorem». (I wonder why you keep bringing in apostrophes here? maybe you secretly like them (: ). It is true that Misplaced Pages's own search engine cannot treat ’ properly. Well, Google search does that pretty well though... If you really want to deprecate the straight apostrophes and promote "curly" ones, then there are 2 options: (1) fix the Wikimedia search engine (hard but not impossible), (2) create redirect pages such as Cayley’s theorem => Cayley's theorem (quite easy with a bot actually). ... stpasha » talk » 00:28, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

That is an interesting historical note, StPasha. But we shouldn't assume that just because the original purpose of a rule has phased out that it no longer serves any purpose at all. Back in the typewriter days, straight quotes served the purpose of keeping keyboards small, but they've developed other purposes since then. The question is whether or not their benefits, such as avoiding problems with temperamental search engines etc., outweigh their disadvantages right now. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:56, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I just tried the following exercise: “Increase the font size in your browser to the largest possible”. Curlies look much better. In fact i even tried to switch to the Times New Roman font — and it looks better at large scale too! (best part about serif fonts at large magnifications is how they handle italics; in fact Arial font italics is barely noticeable in large font size, for some reason). Well, then of course i also reduced the font size in my browser below the Normal setting. And certainly enough, at small scale serif fonts look horribly, and curly quotes are indistinguishable from straight ones. Well, so I guess it all actually depends on what default font size your browser is using, as well as monitor’s resolution.

I also think there could be a compromiss, only it's harder to implement than merely editing the MoS. We could change the Misplaced Pages engine so that there is a new user preference: whether or not to convert curly quotes to straight ones. By default this option can even be set to “convert”, so that a regular person would see the text with straight quotes only. However articles would internally be stored with curly quotes, so that for those people who use large font sizes (visually challenged people, or simply those who like to sit far away from the monitor), or who'd want to make a print copy of an article, it could be send in the unmodified form. ... stpasha » talk » 01:53, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone actually have the curly quotes on their keyboard? Who really has the constitution to use them or figure out how to type them? I bet if you query 100 random editors, fewer that 1 of them would respond that they like to make a habit of "producing" curly quotes. We can never recommend them, because that would be introducing an unacceptable level of complexity for editors. We can't remove the recommendation altogether, because editors will see them and either: 1) Recognize them and come here to see if they're allowed (unlikely), or 2) Not know what the hell they are or how to reproduce them if they want to improve or expand the article (likely). Bad idea, sorry. --Andy Walsh (talk) 03:49, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Utility is certainly an issue. But we don't have m dashes on our keyboards either, and the MoS advocates their use where appropriate. The matter is handled by a list of special characters below the editing window. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:32, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

What kind of keyboard has no em dash? Tony (talk) 06:44, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

aha - now i understand an enigmatic remark you made in my direction a few months ago! my (major brand uk-style) keyboard has no dashes - just a hyphen. it's clearly not unusual for keyboards to lack dashes, and not everyone knows the code for them. Sssoul (talk) 13:54, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

But it depends on the operating system too: while no keyboard using the major operating systems has either en or em dash morphologically speaking, they are usually available with simple combinations.

Mac: opt–hyphen, op-shift-hyphen.
Windows full keyboard: cntrl-(minus sign), cntrl-shift-(minus sign).
Windows lapdog: you're stuck.

Um nope - when I type ctrl+numpad- in the edit window, it zooms the page to 20%. ctrl+shift+numpad- does nothing. (Vista, full keyboard, Opera). Also, if you choose to turn off the silly editing buttons the characters below become static (needing cut'n'paste) rather than insertion links. dramatic (talk) 17:53, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Otherwise, as Darkfrog says, use the easy-to-locate edit tools below the edit-window; or make an Auto-Hot-Key shortcut, which is stunningly easy and effective. Or get a Mac. Tony (talk) 14:07, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

- Ah have a whole type case full a d!ngbats that I throw at de screen whenever!

✁ ✂ ✃ ✄ ☎ ✆ ✇ ✈ ✉ ☛ ☞ ✌ ✍ ✎ ✏

✐ ✑ ✒ ✓ ✔ ✕ ✖ ✗ ✘ ✙ ✚ ✛ ✜ ✝ ✞ ✟ ✠ ✡ ✢ ✣ ✤ ✥ ✦ ✧ ★ ✩ ✪

Heck, ah am my own dingbat!Ah just hurls myself into de computer monitor when I feels like it! --Goodmorningworld (talk) 07:32, 22 July 2009 (UTC) (duH)

My (theoretically UK layout) keyboard has no em dash, nor en dash; but that is no great problem, since I can write — or –. Laptop keyboards typically cut down on the keys, in particular the numeric keypad, which makes it very fiddly to type Unicode numbers with Alt+number. (In Windows.) Similarly it does not have directed quotes on the keyboard. Similarly, US keyboards tend not to have a £ sign. My keyboard does not mark a € sign (AltGr + 4) although it works anyway. It should be remembered that, yes, these can generally all be had in some way (e.g. in Windows at worst using charmap to grab the characters) but can be very fiddly if there are lots of characters that are not on your keyboard: with quotes it is especially fiddly since the openers and closers are different so one needs to jump through hoops to copy both (e.g. to Notepad) then only select one of the two to copy into the article.

By the way I imagine somewhere there is a debate on what # is called, the US tends to call it a pound sign, which confuses UK readers for whom a pound sign is £ (# is a hash).

But in any case, it is better to do this with markup, I think.. You simply mark it up (with a template or HTML tag) as "this is a quote" and the way that the server (WP) or client (browser) decides to display that, is rightly out of your hands. That way a user can choose to display it how they prefer. Although there are templates for quotes, I am not sure that there are for inline quotes? I shall be pleased to be pointed to them if I am wrong.

Similar issues arise with translated articles, or translated phrases, whether to use italic or not, or put the English in italics and the original language in straight, or vice versa, and so on. The {{lang}} template is silent on the matter and articles vary; all one can say, I think, is use the template and then (one hopes) if a prevailing style is adopted the template will be changed to fit. This happens for example with WP:MOSNUM and {{convert}}, which is far more complicated than doing quotes, yet is usually pretty much in line with MoS, and if not then one or the other gets fixed, and if it is too big a fix, MoS is ignored as being unreasonable or unwieldy, but with arguments reached by consensus (they are all sensible people in the MOSNUM and convert talk pages).

Best wishes SimonTrew (talk) 07:49, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, that's a wonderful idea: we could use either <q>lorem</q> html markup or we could use a template: {{q|ipsum}}. Apparently that template even existed once but was deleted :( And for some reason Wikimedia foundation is unwilling to support Q html tag. ... stpasha » talk » 08:15, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

# a.k.a. "the marijuana sign" <g><g><g>--Goodmorningworld (talk) 09:34, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

My keyboard doesn't have an em dash, just a hyphen and an underscore. I have to type out the code or go to Word if I want an em dash. I believe that straight are best for now, but there is some precedent for advocating non-keyboard-ready characters when it is correct to do so. "They're not on the keyboard" is not, by itself, a deal-breaking argument against curly quotes. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:37, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Darkfrog wrote "The matter is handled by a list of special characters below the editing window". This list is entirely useless for similar-looking characters, because the names of the characters are not given. Even for characters that reasonably distinct, it would still be useful to be provided the Unicode character name. A person just beginning to care about typography will have trouble telling the difference between - and –. Few editors can tell the difference between “, ”, and ″ as they appear in Internet Explorer 7 below the edit window. --Jc3s5h (talk) 14:14, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Hm, good point Jc3. Do you think we need to make the list more accessible to neophytes? Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:15, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the list should be made more accessible to everyone (perhaps giving the Unicode name of the symbol during mouse-over). Furthermore, this should be finished before entertaining the idea of curly quotes. --Jc3s5h (talk) 20:22, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I consider these to be two separate issues, but on a practical level, since the time for curly quotes is so far off, it would be better to deal with the unicode strip first. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:49, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

<rant>Why on Earth did Unicode decree that U+0022 is “neutral (vertical), used as opening or closing quotation mark; preferred characters in English for paired quotation marks are U+201C LEFT DOUBLE QUOTATION MARK & U+201D RIGHT DOUBLE QUOTATION MARK”? Had it not, fonts could use right-leaning quotes (as many of them used to do in the past decades), or even a “-like glyph at the beginning of words and a ”-like glyph at their end (as many fonts do for Arabic letters with different contextual forms), there wouldn't be separate “ and ” characters, and we wouldn't even be discussing this. Everyone could choose a font using their favourite glyphs.</rant>

Personally I'm pro-choice about this. Curly quotes are not harder to type or search for than, for example, the minus sign, but then we don't suggest to use the hyphen-minus instead because it's easier to search. BTW, some other Wikipedias preferentially use the quotes which are used in print («like this» in Italian, « like this » in French, „like this“ in German), and the sky hasn't fallen on them. Also, I can't imagine a situation in which one would search for quotation marks themselves (rather than using them to delimit a string). OTOH, I agree that what looks best in print isn't always what looks best on screens. (The master example is

\Rightarrow \,\!

; if the horizontal lines were perfectly parallel, an optical illusion would make them appear to converge rightwards, so TeX, which was originally designed with print in mind, draws them slightly converging leftwards to compensate; but this looks awful on screen.) But this is in the eye of the beholder; for one, I like the look of “” more than that of "" on my screen.

So I think the best solution would just be “use whichever you want, but be consistent in each article”, which is what we do for most style choices. (But if there's consensus against this, I can continue using straight quotes in articles just fine. I have more important things to worry about.)

As for the character palette below the edit box, it looks just fine to me, but if it doesn't for some users, as Jc3s5h points out, we should use a larger type for it. --A. di M. – 2009 Great Misplaced Pages Dramaout 13:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

And I’m back. So, the issue has been discussed over the past few weeks and there appears to be no real argument in favor of recommending the straight quotes. Well, at least there is no argument which would survive a simple exercise of replacing the words “curly quotes” with “n-dash” and “straight quotes” with “hyphen”. Examples:

Curly quotes are difficult to type	N-dashes are difficult to type
Curly quotes are not in the standard ASCII encoding and thus old computers may have difficulties with rendering them.	N-dashes are not in the standard ASCII encoding and thus old computers may have difficulties with rendering them.
People will have difficulties with searching for curly quotes and apostrophes, example: Cramer’s rule	People will have difficulties with searching for n-dashes and m-dashes, example: Cramér–Rao bound
It became standard on the web to use straight quotes instead of curlies.	It became standard on the web to use hyphens in place of n-dashes.
Curly quotes have no real utility: people are perfectly capable of interpreting "…" as opening/closing quotation pair. (Re: they do have utility, “ denotes opening quote, and ” denotes closing quote. And people are capable of recognizing teh for the, it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t watch our grammar).	N-dashes have no real utility: people are perfectly capable of interpreting Cramér-Rao as a disjunctive dash. (Re: n-dashes do have utility: – denotes a disjunctive dash, while - denotes a hyphen. And people are capable of recognizing teh for the, this doesn’t mean we shouldn’t watch our grammar).
etc…

All this is an attempt to prove that curly quotes merit exactly the same treatment as currently n-dashes do (and I bow before those brave people who shouldered the difficult task of persuading the community that correct dashes have to be respected).

Now the good news. I found this nice program http://ilyabirman.ru/english/typography-layout/ which installs new keyboard layout that makes entering all common typography glyphs a breeze. This program is available for Windows and Mac platforms; as for the Linux you can use the standard xmodmap utility to modify the key bindings on system level. Cheers :-) ... stpasha » talk » 15:51, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

In theory, I'm strongly in favor of using curly quotes whenever possible; they are simply correct and straight quotes are simply incorrect. We should find a way to do it. However, changing the MOS to recommend that editors type curly quotes into the edit box is not acceptable in my opinion. There are far too many technical issues, as thoroughly outlined above. The comparison to en dashes is correct in theory but completely wrong in practice. The fact is, en dashes are very very rarely used. The majority of articles do not contain them; the vast majority contain less than, let's say, three. Quotation marks and apostrophes, on the other hand, can be found in almost every paragraph. So the slight technical inconvenience of using en dashes is overruled by correctness, because the use cases where actual problems are caused are so unlikely. Conversely, the slight technical inconvenience of using curly quotes completely overrules correctness, because the use cases where actual problems are caused are legion. This is "the 💕 that anyone can edit", accessibility and usefulness overrule all other concerns. Forcing users to use difficult technology is being disrespectful to their needs. Furthermore, it's completely unrealistic to expect this to gain any traction; we're at three million articles, for crying out loud. Converting every article (manually or botwise) would be far too drastic and messy.

However, as I said, I am a curly quotes advocate. What I propose is a MediaWiki extension (I'm assuming a dozen PHP libraries exist for this purpose) that can be controlled (and is, by default, disabled) in the user preferences. Turn it on when rendering a print version. That's a decent compromise that helps promote curly quotes without being incredibly unfriendly to our users.

There are steps to be made toward typographic zen, but we're just not there in 2009. We'll be there in 2020. Maybe 2015. But not now. —Werson (talk) 03:30, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

While I don't agree with the idea that straight quotes are incorrect or that the time for curly quotes has come, I find your idea that there would be no point to making a change of this kind equally flawed. So what if it would not be practical to go in and change every last article? Why not change the rule and say "Write new articles with . If you're editing an existing article for any reason, feel free to also change the to "? Then the change happens slowly over time. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:53, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, some changes to MoS are certainly desirable. For instance the {{cite ref}} template currently uses typographic quotes to enclose the article’s title. It would be easy for them to change to curly quotes (or at least to add an option quotes = curly|straight|none) but they don’t do that because MoS “discourages” curlies. ... stpasha » talk » 06:20, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary subsection break

Although I support the use of curly quotes in theory, they cannot be declared the norm without a technical solution. On the operating system used by the large majority of Wikipedians (most of whom have no understanding of the issue), the default rich-text editors insert characters #147 and #148 (IIRC) as curly quotes - this is Microsoft providing legacy support so that documents written in pre-unicode days still work in their software. Unfortunately, the code range 128 - 159 is declared void in Unicode (because if there is a 7-bit conversion these map to control code range 1-31). Internet Explorer faithfully renders any characters in this range according to the default code page, but Unicode-compliant browsers (i.e. most others) do not, displaying boxes or error marks. So, the Misplaced Pages software would need to immediately reencode such input as valid unicode. dramatic (talk) 18:04, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Punctuation within a name

This is something I wanted to check about regarding a character article, MissingNo. The period at the end of its name is clearly a part of the character's actual name, as supported by printed material and the game it appears in. However one user noted it was being read as a full-stop, and should be omitted within the body of the article. So my questions are:

Should it be omitted within the article body and written as just "MissingNo"
And if so, should it be left as "MissingNo." for the first mention in the article's lead and/or image captions?

Thanks for any advice on this matter.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:17, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

If it's part of the character's name, it should be used at all occassions. Omitting it would constitute changing the character's name, which would be incorrect on accuracy and intelectual honesty. oknazevad (talk) 02:33, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

If it's not something ridiculous, then keep it. MoS: NAME doesn't mention a thing about punctuation, but keeping the period in "No." seems to be in keeping with the spirit. I'd reword to avoid full-stop ambiguity where necessary. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:03, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Without the period/full stop, the only way to read it is as "Missing No" (negative), when "Missing Number" must be at least one of the intended meanings. So there's more than just a stylistic reason to keep the stop (as opposed to commercial brands that insist on using ALL CAPITALS or all lower-case). And in the case of authors like e.e. cummings and anomalies like eBay and the iPod, we should (but apparently don't) keep their style instead of substituting Misplaced Pages's. —— Shakescene (talk) 08:27, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

You might want to read E. E. Cummings#Name and capitalization. --NE2 09:31, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it means "missing number", so it needs a period at the end. --A. di M. – 2009 Great Misplaced Pages Dramaout 12:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

But No is a special case (Numero, French I think into English but perhaps other latinate languages also). By UK English WP rules you don't put a stop after No because it ends in O (it would, I guess be N'o to show the missing letters but no stop at the end) but in practice No is written thus, and stops seem rather optional. The difficulty arises, I think that it is not an English abbreviation, it is an abbreviation of a French word. A. di. M. is perhaps best to qualify this, considering the stops in the username (and his general intelligence and sensibility).

Best wishes SimonTrew (talk) 00:15, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, in UK English there's no period when the abbreviation ends with the same letter as the full word (e.g. "Mr" for "Mister"), but in US English there is, and WP:ENGVAR says, "The exceptions are: ... proper names (the original spelling is used, for example United States Department of Defense and Australian Defence Force); ..." (Now you might argue about whether names of Pokémon species are proper names, but c'mon.) --A. di M. 10:16, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

(BTW the French word has an accent somewhere, "numero" comes from the Latin ablative: see Numero sign. --A. di M. 10:18, 26 July 2009 (UTC))

I suppose they're proper nouns. "Gandalf" and "USS Enterprise" are both proper nouns even though they're both fictional. Aside from that, judging solely by the video game screencap shown in the article, the source material seems to place a period after "No." Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:27, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

MissingNo. is an abbreviation, and it's standard (American) English to use a period (see R.E.M., E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial). So there's nothing wrong with it. If the period was just decoration (like Clerks. it would be preferable to ignore it. —Werson (talk) 14:44, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Formal Name of an Office

The "titles of people" section states that "the formal name of an office is treated as a proper noun." This rule seems too vague. My preference would be for it to be eliminated altogether, but if it is retained, there should at least be some guidance as to what qualifies as an "office." Many pompous people consider their job title (e.g., "attorney") to be an "office" worthy of capitalization. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.231.6.87 (talk) 20:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I am not going to quote right now, since it is early days and not worth getting 101 slightly different sources, but at least ib British English a cap is used as a singular position and without cap for the collective. e.g. the Government is the people ruling you badly, a government is any of many governments ruling you badly. And mutatis mutandis. In British English we would write Road-Sweeper or Rat-Catcher with caps or minuscule depending on context.

The classic example here is the City of London (from an American, and I have lost the book but can find it, about 1930 but not Thurber's style). You can be in the city without being in the City, but you cannot be in the City without being in the city.

Best wishes SimonTrew (talk) 00:04, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the word "duology"

(Linking to this from numerous places)

There's some debate at Talk:List of film duologies regarding whether the nascent term "duology" should be used on Misplaced Pages. It refers to a two-part work of fiction; it's not listed in any established dictionary, but is widely used on the web. The issue seems to be one of brevity versus clarity. Here are a few of the places the term is in use:

There was some prior discussion over this last August at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(films)#Problems_with_film_series_titling_guideline. The consensus at that time appeared to be that film series should use "(film series)", and by analogy I presume that "(series)" or "(book series)" is appropriate for literature. That leaves open the question of the use of the term in the bodies of articles, and the use of it in the names of list articles like List of film duologies (should it be List of two-part film series?). What's the final verdict on "duology"? Dcoetzee 05:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Well I hope the term "duology" is correct, as I've been using it professionally to refer to a pair of literary works on a common theme by the same author! I dislike the use of the term "series" to refer to only two works – in publishing, a "series" is four works or more. Etymologically, it should be "dilogy", but "dilogy" means a word or phrase which has two meanings: "dilogy" is not a dilogy, although it would be kind cute if it were… Physchim62 (talk) 08:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the word duology is ugly; but so are most new words. And yes, it is not well-formed from Greek; but then, neither is television (first part Greek, second part Latin). And yes, dilogy is already taken (as well as "an ambiguity", as Physchim points out, it can mean "2. Repetition of a word or phrase, in the same context. In recent Dicts" (OED). Looks like it fills a niche that diptych does not fit into neatly. We can't recommend against it without also recommending something better in its place.

–_⊥Noetica!– 09:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Noetica ... except that I have no objection to Greek/Latin combos! Tony (talk) 11:25, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Normally, I am fine with "duology" and "trilogy", but my problem is with the {{Film series}} template that goes beyond these: tetralogies, pentalogies, hexalogies, heptalogies, octologies, ennealogies, decalogies, and polylogies! I mean, come on. "Trilogy" is the most well-known of the bunch, and "duology" is known to a lesser extent, but the rest of them seem like an overly complicated way to be consistent with trilogy and duology. I think we should pursue a different naming convention -- something like "List of film series with two entries". —Erik (talk • contrib) 12:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Perfect illustration of how the template mentality can go awry. Tony (talk) 14:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. It seems that even the film world stops using number-specific terminology once they hit four films. As for "duology," I'm of a divided mind on the word itself, but "List of film series with two entries" seems quite unobjectionable. However, it also sounds as though not all film series that happen to have two entries are true duologies, just as not all film series that have three entries are true trilogies. Therefore, our real criterion should be what exactly it is that we're trying to describe. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

When I skimmed the lists of film series with x entries, they seemed well-updated. If a film series gets one more film, the list of films is moved to the successive "list of film series" article. My real concern is for the article titles. "Duology" and "trilogy" can be somewhat misleading because it sounds like an intended setup, where it's not always the case. For example, American Psycho had a DTV sequel that really had very little to do with the first film (and actually completely missed the purpose of it). Using "List of film series with x entries" makes the issue more ambiguous since unlike the tetralogy/pentalogy/hexalogy names, it does not sound like a preconceived setup. —Erik (talk • contrib) 17:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Guidance for bulleted lists

I recently removed bullets from many paragraphs in Write-in candidate (diff), because in those sections every paragraph was preceded by a bullet, which seemed pointless to me. However, it was soon reverted (diff), with the claim that the sections do not read easily using plain paragraphs.

Eons ago, the Manual of Style said, "If every paragraph in a section is bulleted, it is likely that none should be bulleted" (see, for example, ). Over time, the wording of this sentence was changed a bit, and apparently at some point a comment was added which I do not understand ("this is a critique of a hypothetical article - not guidance"). Eventually the sentence was removed in an edit that, ironically, turned the entire "bullets and numbered lists" section into a bulleted list (diff). No edit summary was used when this sentence was deleted, and the only discussion I can find in the talk page archives does not seem to explain why this sentence was removed (see Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Archive 93#Bullets and numbered lists).

I am looking for some guidance for situations like this. I do not understand why the addition of bullets before every paragraph in a section of an article can make it easier to read, and so I feel that they are unnecessary and should be removed. The paragraphs read just as well without the bullets as they do with the bullets. This is an encyclopedia, after all, not a PowerPoint presentation. Is it not true that "if every paragraph in a section is bulleted, it is likely that none should be bulleted"? What do the bullets contribute in a situation like this? —Bkell (talk) 18:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

As the editor who reverted, all I can say is that in the case of Write-in candidate, each paragraph is independent, and the paragraphs do not "flow" as a story. The paragraphs are intended to be read independently (because some candidates are more interesting than others). Therefore, I think it is easier to read the article with bullets. Dems on the move (talk)

I agree with Dems. These sections are collections of lists in paragraph form. Bullet points are not without application here. Whether we absolutely need to have the bullet points is another question, but they are not nearly as out of place as they would be in most articles. The real question is whether the sections should be written in list-paragraph form in the first place. I think it's easy to read, organizing the paragraphs by candidate, especially because there are so few of them. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'd seen that disconnected, particulate nature of each para and thought that this is one of the unusual instances where bullets are probably OK. They are, at least, a signal to the reader not to expect the normal flow that is encountered in a WP section. Some editors would have framed it explicitly as a list, which would also be OK. If it were a FA nomination, the reviewers would complain if the bulleted sections were not balanced by the presence of more flowing information. Tony (talk) 07:55, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Help with parens

Over at Expedition to the Barrier Peaks I'm doing an FAC, and it hasn't come up, but I'm wondering if I'm using parens correctly. Here's what it says:

He gave it 9/10 overall, but complained that some of the maps were printed on both sides of the same sheet, making them useless as a Dungeon Master's shield. (A visual barrier that allows dice rolls and other activities to be conducted without the players knowing the outcome.)

Can I put a whole sentence inside parens? Should it go inside the first sentence? If it should, where should I put the ref, because it only supports the first sentence. Thanks. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 21:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The sentence inside the parentheses is a fragment, so either it needs to go with the first sentence:

He gave it 9/10 overall, but complained that some of the maps were printed on both sides of the same sheet, making them useless as a Dungeon Master's shield (a visual barrier that allows dice rolls and other activities to be conducted without the players knowing the outcome).

or it needs to be rewritten as a full sentence:

He gave it 9/10 overall, but complained that some of the maps were printed on both sides of the same sheet, making them useless as a Dungeon Master's shield. (A Dungeon Master's shield is visual barrier that allows dice rolls and other activities to be conducted without the players knowing the outcome.)

The first option is probably better, since you don't have to repeat "Dungeon Master's shield". In both cases the reference should appear directly after "as a Dungeon Master's shield". Strad (talk) 23:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:12, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

No dashes in category names? Hello?

Someone has launched in and made a major change. I don't think there was consensus for this, was there? I think it should be reverted until there is proper consensus. There's some reference to archives in the edit summary. Tony (talk) 12:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't remember any discussion for this change. The change description mentions that this change was requested on July 14 and is in the archives. Archived dash sections from around that time include , , and . None of them explicitly mention changing "file names of images" to "category names." Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:35, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Archive 109#Hyphens in category names. DrKiernan (talk) 13:16, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I undid the change. If consensus to make any change develops while the MOS page is still protected, please use the {{editprotected}} template to bring in an uninvolved admin to edit the MOS page. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

So 1. a consensus did exist 2. but Vegaswikian should have requested administrative intervention rather than inputting the new phrasing personally. Okay. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:03, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Normally, if a discussion sits idle for so long that it is archived, I would take that as evidence that there was not a consensus for a change. But things are more difficult on fully-protected pages, because many editors will be unable to make changes they propose. One role of the editprotected template (beyond bringing in someone to make the change) is that the template itself serves as a proxy for the edit that cannot be directly made to the protected page. If there is consensus for the change, editors will not contest the editprotected tag. If there is not consensus, editors will contest it. This makes it much easier for an uninvolved admin to see whether there is consensus for the change. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:09, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I believe the discussion should be revisited before any action is taken. And can someone determine whether the use of punctuation in category names is dealt with in another style guide or policy? I seem to remember a doubling up. Tony (talk) 15:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Category names in general avoid any characters that can not be directly entered from a common English language keyboard since redirects don't work on categories. There is, to my knowledge, nothing actually written in WP:CAT on this. However a significant majority of past discussions have supported this restriction. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, So where do we go from here? Do I simply have to make another request to have the change made? Do I tag the change that had consensus in this discussion with the template? I read the template and the document that goes along with it is less then clear on this. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to participate further in this discussion as an admin or a participant, but my suggestion is to make a new post with the precise change you propose. Link to the previous discussion as well. Add the {{editprotected}} template with you comment. Then wait for either an admin to make the change or someone else to dispute the change and remove the editprotected tempate. I will see if I can clarify the documentation for the editprotected template to make it easier for people in the future. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:58, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

ampersand in corporate names

The style book says:

"The ampersand (&) is a symbol representing the word and. In running prose, and should mainly be used instead as it is more formal. If it appears in the titles of businesses, works, or in a quotation, the use of an ampersand is justified."

OK, "justified." But is the ampersand preferable to "and" in the names of corporate entities? Is it conventional and thus to be used in the title of an article on such an entity? I'm starting a stub on the 19th-century architectural firm "Lanyon, Lynn & Lanyon," to which I'll need to link. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:44, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't it use the form that the company itself uses/used? --Auntof6 (talk) 18:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. The only time you alter a company name is to remove ridiculous formatting conventions. If the company uses an ampersand, use the ampersand. If it uses and, use and. Strad (talk) 19:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

On the other hand, if the company, or that business as a whole, seems to use 'and' and '&' interchangeably, it may make sense to create a naming convention ("house style") for that field. For example, Trains magazine always uses the ampersand, even when the railroad company always uses 'and'; our longstanding naming convention is the opposite. --NE2 19:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

The common-sense principles above (that is, do as the corporation itself does) seem right to me for modern entities; however, the point about using the two interchangeably and the proposal to have a "house style" gets at my question better. My particular corporation is historical, long dead and gone; when we title the article "William Shakespeare," we're relying on our own conventions of orthography, since his name was spelled variously in his life. Printers in the 19th century and earlier used the ampersand willy-nilly for "and," so in many if not most historical instances, corporate in-house style, if it existed, would be difficult if not impossible to determine. (I also corrected an earlier typo in '19th-century' above.) Cynwolfe (talk) 21:16, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Would WP: COMMONNAMES apply here? Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:15, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Hm. Helpful in principle. But in part that's what I'm asking: my impression is that an ampersand is common and even conventional in corporate names, but I don't know what I'm basing that on. Cynwolfe (talk) 01:27, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I would add that we should exempt logos and headers from the estimation of what is common and go with body text only. Many companies punctuate differently when going for visual effect. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:28, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

¶ Although none of these should be the deciding factor, some technical considerations may be relevant:

Ampersands are usually harder to find and type on standard keyboards (it's shift-7 on my US Windows Vista one from Compaq), so used in the titles of articles they may make searches a little harder.
On the other side, ampersands remove some ambiguity from unfamiliar foreign conjunctions such as those in Moët et Chandon, Saône-et-Loire, Thurn und Taxis or Romeo y Julieta.
There may be some problem because in HTML, ampersands are used to introduce extra non-alphabetic characters such as comma, colon and ampersand itself.

As for corporate style, everyone in the Northern California refers to the local utility, Pacific Gas and Electric orally as "Pee-Gee-and-Ee", abbreviated in writing as "PG&E", "P.G.& E.", or occasionally "P.G. and E." But when covering a municipalization initiative in Berkeley in the early 1970's I found that the company's own press releases referred to it as "PGandE". However, I see that the present logo includes the ampersand prominently. —— Shakescene (talk) 04:19, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Point 3 sounds sobering. Point 2 perplexes me: are you saying it would be OK and maybe even helpful to substitute an ampersand in, say, Saône-et-Loire? Et, y, and especially und would seem to qualify rather as familiar foreign conjunctions. But I think what's emerging is that there really is no strong pull toward conventional usage one way or the other when it comes to the ampersand for a corporate name. There is, however, an argument for avoiding an ampersand when possible even in these names. Yes or no? Cynwolfe (talk) 04:52, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not yet taking a definite stand one way or the other on any of these issues, just throwing out some points to consider. But your point is well taken: I must have been thinking more of the reverse situation, where the foreign entity most often uses an ampersand (or, to confuse things further, a plus-sign, +) and a reader might not know enough (especially with less-familiar languages like Finnish, Basque, Hebrew or Arabic) to substitute the correct conjunction. I wish that I could remember some good examples, but they escape my mind right now. This is less of a problem in Spanish, Portuguese and Italian where an ampersand would normally replace a single-letter conjunction (y, e or i) and would thus save little space. —— Shakescene (talk) 07:10, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Change wording on when to use hyphens

Currently the policy includes this statement 'Dashes should never be used in the filenames of images (use hyphens instead).' I'm requesting that this be changed to 'Dashes should never be used in category names; use hyphens instead.' This request is based on the consensus in this archived discussion.

The proposal does two things. It removes a restriction from our MoS that is apparently in conflict the naming convention on commons for files. It adds an exception for issues that still exists from the software in how it supports category redirects. This proposal does not address an issue raised in the discussion on using spaces before or after a hyphen. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:35, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Hyphens are not normally spaced—certainly in titles. Run past us again why dashes should never be used in either image filenames or in category names? I've never heard anything so illogical. Tony (talk) 13:42, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

There's a very good reason not to use dashes where they have to be parsed correctly by the software or produce the wrong output - they are extremely difficult to distinguish from hyphens in isolation, which makes names with dashes in the names considerably harder to link to in articles. For articles this is less problematic because we can create redirects from the hyphenated names, but this isn't available for filespace or catspace. It's an issue of simple utility over MoS purism. Both should be discouraged as a simple courtesy to that majority of the population which doesn't know or care about characters which aren't available on regular keyboards. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:10, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Tony, you've seriously never heard anything as ridiculous as a disagreement over punctuation? How long have you been on Misplaced Pages again? =) For the record, I agree with Vegas and Chris. Powers 15:20, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

The proposal seems reasonable, an understandable concession to technological limitations. However, shouldn't the phrasing mention both file names of images and category names? Also, acknowledging that this change was properly discussed before it was implemented. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:35, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Chris says: "they have to be parsed correctly by the software or produce the wrong output - they are extremely difficult to distinguish from hyphens in isolation, which makes names with dashes in the names considerably harder to link to in articles". I don't understand a bit of it. If software can "parse" dashes in article titles, what is the problem with parsing them in category titles? In what respect are they "extremely difficult to distinguish from hyphens"? I've seen a developer debunk these arguments before, I'm sure. Tony (talk) 16:00, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Most people cannot reliably distinguish between - and – in isolation (i.e. without having the other to compare to it). If I type Scottish Premier League 2008-09 then I am transparently taken to Scottish Premier League 2008–09 via a redirect page; as explained here, the same is not possible for redirects to the file or category namespaces. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:46, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

My initial proposal was to add categories to images as the exception. A point was made that since there is no restriction on commons for files that we should not be more restrictive. If the change is made and images are left in as an exception, I don't think that most editors would be upset. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:36, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

The proposal is not consensual. It is made at a time when the page is locked. I believe that several skilled and experienced editors are not participating in discussions here, and that they will not return until the people responsible for the current absurd impasse have repaired their damage.

Nor has discussion in the archives yielded wide consensus for any such change. (The page was already disrupted, and avoided, when that discussion took place.) Therefore, even without weighing the supposed merits of the particular case, I oppose the proposal.

I call on Darkfrog, and any others he or she nominates as bringing about the present dire problem, to get on with fixing it. I see no reason for us to accept them as participants in this or any other discussion until they have done so.

–_⊥Noetica!– 22:53, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

The fact that the page is locked over some other dispute is simply no reason not to make changes in other areas that have consensus. To shut down sensible work on the encyclopedia and its policies because of some bickering is simply unacceptable! Please contribute to productive work and changes! Vegaswikian (talk) 23:22, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Darkfrog, the page remains locked because when, a few weeks ago, I tried to arrange for it to be unlocked, ~~you stuck a knife into that move~~ it received negative comment from you and others. Tony (talk) 02:54, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Saying, "I don't have strong feelings about it either way" is sticking a knife in it? What are you talking about? Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:08, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. The fact that the page is locked has nothing to do with this. The proposal should be discussed on its merits. With regard to whether the previous discussion was valid because other editors may or may not have been discouraged from participating by the page's protected status, isn't there a policy that says, " 'There's no consensus because I wasn't here' isn't a good argument against consensus"? Or was that only a line in "signs that you might be slipping into feelings of article ownership"? EDIT: Ah yes this is where I saw it.

Noetica, the page was locked over an edit war in which I did not participate. I had no more or less to do with it than anyone else who was not a direct participant. Kindly stop addressing these requests to me. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:34, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Vegaswikian writes: "The fact that the page is locked over some other dispute is simply no reason not to make changes in other areas that have consensus." I agree. But as I have pointed out, we do not have consensus for the proposed change. We cannot get consensus while experienced MOS-editing regulars are staying away from discussion because of the present stalement.

Darkfrog, I have suggested that you nominate those you think are responsible for the current mess, and that we hold them to account. You continue in your failure to do this, and to acknowledge your own well-documented role in destabilising the page (see your edits around 30 May 2009: two months ago, now). It is ridiculous to suggest that I claim any ownership here, and your attempt to appeal to a policy page to suggest any impropriety on my part is ill-focused and futile. I say only that the work of all editors is seriously impeded by the disruption in which you participated. Fix it, please. That hard work is overwhelmingly urgent. Discussion of other issues in the meantime is a waste of everyone's time.

–_⊥Noetica!– 03:09, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I do not mean to imply that you were claiming ownership for yourself, Noetica, but it seemed as if you were claiming it on other people's behalf. I meant only to show that last month's discussion about whether to change the phrasing is not invalidated by the absence of any specific Misplaced Pages editor.

The page was not protected because of a discussion; it was protected because of an edit war. You seem to feel that no improvements can be made to the MoS while it is protected, but the discussions on this page are evidence to the contrary.

Finger-pointing is improper. Please stop and please stop asking me to join in. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:29, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Darkfrog, no clear, wide, or resilient consensus was reached in the discussion you refer to. I do not make any claim about any specific editor's absence, then or now. I do say (yet again) that during the current disruption editors are staying away, just because it is so unpleasant to be here and because they can see no way to do useful work in this climate.

It remains mysterious why you do not acknowledge your part in disrupting our work, in the face of plain evidence. It is also mysterious why you are not pushing for a resolution to the impasse, even if you were not involved.

I am asking that you, and everyone, accept that we have larger work to do before we can proceed with details. I have been patient and restrained. So have others, whom we do not so far see joining in my call for action. Who, after all, would want to engage with the implacable obstructionism we have seen over the last two months?

–_⊥Noetica!– 04:13, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I do not claim that last month's discussion was perfect, only that the absence of one or more specific people from that discussion is not sufficient to invalidate it (and that therefore Vegaswikian was not out of line in believing that consensus was sufficient). We should certainly discuss the matter further now that other editors want to weigh in.

I certainly did participate in a long and often heated discussion about Misplaced Pages's punctuation policies and the way they are treated in the MoS, but this discussion is not why the page is locked. I have not pushed for the page to become unlocked because I do not have strong feelings about the matter. I do not see the page's locked status as a serious problem, though I can respect the feelings and conclusions of those who do. If other users have not "joined in your call," then perhaps it is not because they are afraid of me but rather because they, too, do not see it as a serious problem. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:27, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

No one's afraid of you, Darkfrog. People are, however, dismayed at your unwillingness to respect MOS and the work of its editors.

It is not a question of "the absence of one or more specific people". Two points (already made, above): There was no sound consensus anyway; and editors generally were staying away, and are still staying away, because of the dismal overwhelming problem with this page. Yes, as you now admit you "certainly did participate in a long and often heated discussion about Misplaced Pages's punctuation policies and the way they are treated in the MoS"; and your own earlier irresponsible editing was a major factor in fanning that conflagration. Take responsibility. Work towards a solution, please. As you say, you "do not have strong feelings about the matter". Interesting. You care about all manner of details, but you don't care that the day-to-day work of dedicated editors has been disrupted for weeks, with no end in site.

I urge editors not to tolerate this sort of contemptuous abuse of process.

–_⊥Noetica!– 05:31, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Wading into these turbulent waters, I believe the proposal is reasonable, for although it may not be fully grammatically correct to not use dashes in file and category names, it is a reasonable variation to accomodate Wiki's technical limtations. And file names should still be included, for although the limitations may not exist at commons, it is virtually impossible for every file to be on commons due to the fair use nature of corporate logos, which can't be hosted on common, iinm.

As for whether this is a valid consensus, the lack of participation by some editors cannot be held against it, as participation in the project is not mandatory. If some have choosen not to participate, then consensus must be based on those that do choose to participate. There's no permanent membership or quorom to fulfill here. If one is absent from the discussion, then that is that. oknazevad (talk) 05:13, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Oknazedad, it is not a simple choice not to participate in particular discussions. People are understandably repelled by the obstructionism of the last few weeks. This is not a climate in which reasoned collegial discussion can proceed. Those who brought about the present difficulties do not budge. Why would any editor want to confront such stonewalling? They stay away, and their absence means that we cannot go about "business as usual". This is indeed a crisis.

–_⊥Noetica!– 05:25, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

No. The only obstructionism here is from you. Numerous editors have been attempting to have reasoned, collegial discussions about a variety of topics. Yet you keep badgering one contributor in all discussions on this page, even when they are completely unrelated to the original dispute. Frankly, I find your behaviour here obnoxious and more detrimental to collegial discussion than any past incidents. Please stop. oknazevad (talk) 21:54, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Good to see you expressing your view robustly, Oknazevad. Unfortunately, history shows that you are wrong. I mean the histories of WP:MOS, of this talkpage, and of Darkfrog's and my contributions. The evidence shows that work on MOS has been irresponsibly interrupted (it still is!), that Darkfrog was centrally involved, and that I was not. The evidence also plainly shows that the perpetrators are doing nothing to undo this damage. If editors whose work is disrupted cannot robustly hold those enemies of collegiality to account without being branded "obnoxious" and uncollegial, we are in even worse shape than I say above. No wonder several editors specialising in MOS stay silent and stay away; and no wonder these disruptive elements have their way – again and again. I again call on editors to suspend any development work on MOS guidelines until the present crisis is resolved.

–_⊥Noetica!– 09:15, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Some of us are actually trying to get work done here. There are plenty of people who are glad and willing to do just that. Past contributions don't guarantee future rights to determine future outcomes, so just because some past contributors have stopped contributing does NOT mean that work must stop ! Your so-called "crisis" only exists in your mind. oknazevad (talk) 14:32, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Once more, Oknazevad, it is good to see your bold opinions aired. But once more, strident assertions are not enough. We'd need evidence and reasoned argument. When a page that is important for the whole project is disabled for weeks on end, with no prospect of relief, and the editors who caused that do nothing towards a solution, we have a crisis. When a straggling few dwell on mere details here, distracting attention from the central problem, we have a crisis. When those who remind them of this sorry state of affairs are themselves accused, we have a crisis. No wonder editors stay away.

I don't say that work must stop. We might reasonably answer queries, offer interpretations, and the like. But don't imagine that there can be serious development of the page, while the crisis quite manifestly continues. Of course I can't stop people ignoring the plain facts; but I can draw attention to them so that people don't grow entirely oblivious.

–_⊥Noetica!– 16:29, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Noetica, why don't you start a new section? You certainly seem to feel that this issue is important enough to merit one. That way, it would be more likely to get the attention that you feel it deserves and the rest of the issues under discussion can proceed with fewer interruptions. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment I have not been actively watching this discussion, so I may say things that have been said before. Here are my views: dashes for file names are unnecessary and would make things difficult; in the edit screen, there is no difference between the appearance of a hyphen and an en dash, and the difference between the hyphen / en dash and the em dash (in the edit screen) is barely noticeable. For category names, I agree it would be nice for en dashes, but only if there was a way to make a "category redirect" (not sure if these exist or technically feasible). Dabomb87 (talk) 17:36, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Vegaswikian, perhaps it would be best to leave the edit request tag off until after we confirm that we've reached a consensus. To that effect...

Support. This change of phrasing seems to be a reasonable concession to technological limitations. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:08, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

That would be fine if we can keep the discussion on track. Consensus was already reached in the archived discussion. Right now the only issues are over the inclusion of two additional words and the dispute over some individuals who apparently think that they can take the ball and go home shutting down changes here. If consensus is difficult to see, it is only because of the side issues that don't have to do with the actual proposed content changes. I agree that I'm not normally here for discussions, but this is not what I expected. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:26, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

With regard to the two words, I for one am satisfied with the reasons you gave for why they are not included in the new phrasing. With regard to the previous consensus—which I believe does count as consensus—while it is not invalidated by any given editor's absence, I believe that it is right and proper for an editor to create a new discussion if he or she has serious concerns. I don't agree with Tony's conclusion, but he's gone about it in the right way. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:34, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Oppose removing dashes from category titles. I agree that typographic style is not important for file names since they don't appear in the article, they're mostly only seen by editors, they're nongrammatical, and are expected to be saved to hard drives, etc., where technical limitations are more significant. But category titles actually appear in mainspace, and readers interact with them. They should be stylistically correct. Categories are edited infrequently, and generally by experienced users who use that drop-down box script, whatever it's called. Dashes don't cause enough problems to forbid them. —Werson (talk) 03:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually most of the category names have hyphens and this has worked without issues. It is only lately that some requests for changing of the hyphen have become more common. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:31, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Obviously the hyphen won't cause "issues", but if it's incorrect it should be changed. —Werson (talk) 23:44, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Splitting off punctuation disputes?

Currently more than half the talk page is dedicated to a single, ongoing (and seemingly endless) debate over American/British/logical punctuation. Then further down the page we have another immortal behemoth of a discussion over quotation mark glyphs. Can we please put these in a subpage (WT:MOS/Punctuation, maybe) so that the rest of the discussions have some room to breathe? Strad (talk) 22:21, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. Punctuation is part of the MoS, so the MoS talk page is the place to discuss punctuation for Misplaced Pages articles. Also section 8, Punctuation, ties with section 16, Grammar, for largest subsection of the MoS, so it's not all that surprising that punctuation discussions take up a big portion of the talk page. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

~~Oppose~~. Neutral I don't necessarily have the same views as the others that have posted here, who are all intelligent and sensible. It needs to be kept in MOSTALK as per Darkfrog. SimonTrew (talk) 23:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Now I think about it, I tend to more look at MOSNUM (and {{convert}}, which are siamese twins) so if you have MOSNUM I can't see why you can't have MOSPUNC. If it is large then split it off. SimonTrew (talk) 23:44, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you there, Trew: If the punctuation portion of the MoS were its own separate page, then it would make sense for punctuation discussions to take place on a separate talk page. However, whether or not punctuation should be split off from the main MoS is another question. My take is that a separate punctuation page is not necessary at this time. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree, but MOSNUM is still part of MOS — just it has its own chat page so it doesn't clutter MOS talk. It is still part of the MOS (which of course comes under WP:COMMON anyway) but it means that discussions can happen off the main page and not waste others' time.

Best wishes SimonTrew (talk) 11:08, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

For full disclosure, I dislike Misplaced Pages's punctuation style. But I follow it because that is the style. Consistency is most important. I am more than happy to argue whether to use this quote or that dash or whatever but consistency is what we want, I think. This is not the place to argue the details, just wanted to disclose that. SimonTrew (talk) 11:21, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, MOSNUM is part of the MoS project, but this and this are two separate pages, so it makes more sense that numbers would have a separate talk page than that punctuation would. Darkfrog24 (talk) 11:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Slight lean towards support: Even though Misplaced Pages talk:MOSNUM stands alone (like Misplaced Pages talk:MOSICON, etc.) because it's attached to the stand-alone MOS page for dates and numbers (WP:MOSNUM), that Talk Page itself had to be split in order to allow other questions room to breathe during The Great Date Auto-Formatting War of 2008. I don't think the punctuation debates have reached that level (they're certainly far more civil), but should they grow so long that they crowd out everything else, there is a precedent. On the other hand, punctuation (unlike spelling) is harder to split cleanly from other questions of grammar and style.

What I do think we might come to agree on is that when the time comes to archive all or part of the punctuation debates, they should have a separate, clearly-marked archive of their own (rather than being buried with unrelated questions in number 110 or 111 — if I'm keeping correct count), which would make retrieval far easier for everyone. —— Shakescene (talk) 21:44, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose, based on the substance of the proposal. But even before we look at that substance, we are not ready to have this discussion.

The solution to the present disruption is for Darkfrog, and any others she or he nominates as involved, to repair the damage they have brought about. The solution is not to have the main MOS page split as a further consequence of their mischief.

Those perpetrators have no place in a discussion of this sort, until they have done that work. Why should we others, and the Misplaced Pages community as a whole, suffer because of their irresponsible behaviour, and their obdurate refusal to focus on what is obviously their most urgent task?

We others, who want to get on with plain housekeeping and incremental improvement of MOS, are justified if we urge them away from discussions like this. Let them go back and fix things first. Then we can accept them as participants in new discussions.

–_⊥Noetica!– 23:13, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. Tony (talk) 05:06, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Oppose—Past experience has shown that moving discussions off to subpages is not very helpful. The subpage gets ignored by all but a few editors who are really into the issue and who come back with a "consensus" which really counts for nothing. Unless the page itself is split, let's not split the discussion. JIMp_talk·cont 08:33, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Oppose Reduces visibility of discussions when we actually need more opinions. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:31, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Oppose nothing warrants splitting punctuations to it's specific subpage. Numbers and Dates are huge sections, with a million different cases to cover. Punctuation is not nearly as big as them, nor so clearly distinguishable from the rest of the MoS. Headbomb {_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 14:55, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Another dash question

What should be used for Lehigh-Buffalo Terminal Railway? The name comes from it being the Lehigh Valley Railroad's terminal railway in Buffalo. --NE2 15:58, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Same thing for Wabash-Hannibal Bridge Company (the Wabash Railroad's bridge at Hannibal). --NE2 16:01, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

"Lehigh – Buffalo Terminal Railway", if the route is from Lehigh (Valley) to Buffalo, since an en dash is used for direction, motion, route. But I'm wrong to space the en dash if "Buffalo Terminal" or "Buffalo Terminal Railway" are not the second unit; that is, if it's the Terminal Railway for the Lehigh–Buffalo route. If one or both of the units linked by the en dash has an internal space, the en dash itself is spaced on both sides.

"Wabash–Hannibal Bridge Company": this is a company specifically to build a bridge between Wabash and Hannibal? If so, unspaced, since both units are single words. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony1 (talk • contribs)

I explained how the names were formed. The first means "terminal railway in Buffalo for the Lehigh Valley Railroad" and the second "bridge company at Hannibal for the Wabash Railroad" (which owned the Wabash Bridge). --NE2 17:02, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, so my suggestion was correct: "Buffalo Terminal", not "Buffalo", is the second element; therefore, a spaced en dash is required, since there's a space in at least one of the elements. This is a good example of why we need to use spaced and unspaced en dashes functionally. Same for the Wabash example. Tony (talk) 03:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Poll on Ireland article names

A poll has been set up at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration/Poll on Ireland article names. This is a formal vote regarding the naming of the Ireland and Republic of Ireland and possibly the Ireland (disambiguation) pages. The result of this poll will be binding on the affected article names for a period of two years. This poll arose from the Ireland article names case at the Arbitration Committee and the Ireland Collaboration Project. The order that the choices appear in the list has been generated randomly. Voting will end at 21:00 (UTC) of the evening of 13 September 2009 (that is 22:00 IST and BST).

Tiny tiny images

An example of a thumbnail image that is too large if the size isn't fixed

Why is it that most FACs I review now have microscopic images that are utterly useless unless you double-click on them? Is there scurrilous guidance here that is making nominators ruin this already-weak part of WP (criticised in an external report written up in the most recent Signpost, I think). It seems weird. Have our readers got Internet connections that are so snail-paced we have to go backwards to the 20th century? And, BTW, who wants to see tiny-wrap skyscraper-tall captions with one-to-three words in most lines? They look ridiculous. See here, for example. Tony (talk) 12:17, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

As an aside, I agree with Tony that the example was ridiculously small, and have fixed it in the Donnchadh, Earl of Carrick article. On the left is original the example again, so that you can see what it was like before it was fixed. Eubulides (talk) 23:13, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Good heavens, is it possible for you to write a criticism without sounding apoplectic? Anyway, the article you linked looks fine to me. Maybe you can adjust your thumbnail size in preferences? Powers 12:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Tony, there seems to be something in the MoS that makes editors think only thumbnails are allowed, except for the lead image. Certain editors go around removing image sizes, citing the MoS. With a couple of articles I've written, I've suggested on the talk page that we could try to get them to FA standard, and one of the first responses has been, "You'd need to get rid of the fixed image sizes." The problem with using thumbnails is that the sizing is inconsistent. Most of the time they took tiny, and sometimes enormous; see right for an example of the latter. SlimVirgin 12:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Re "something in the MoS that makes editors think only thumbnails are allowed, except for the lead image" - it's the "one size fits all" approach of some MOS zealots, and their forgetting that MOS is a guideline, i.e. WP:IAR applies. The idea that "only thumbnails are allowed" has clear weaknesses, e.g.:

It's no use to readers, most of whom are unregistered so can't set prefs.
It depends on the pic. E.g. a simple pic such as most flags can be shown pretty small, but many maps and diagrams need to be larger.
It also depends on the use. For example File:Atrax robustus.jpg can be shown if it's just a pic of the Sydney funnel-web spider or of spiders in general, but needs to be enlarged if it's used to illustrate the modification of the chelicerae into venom-injecting fangs, which is spiders' signature feature.

Such points should be left to the judgement of editors and reviewers. --Philcha (talk) 13:06, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

We've had this discussion several times on this page that I recall, and every time there is no consensus to force people to use thumbnails, yet somehow it has crept into the MoS: "Generally, use the thumbnail option ("thumb"), which is available in the image markup. ... As a rule, images should not be set to another size (that is, one that overrides the default)." SlimVirgin 14:02, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Something I've suggested on the WT:FAC page that I think could be considered: We ask for thumbnails for images when they are to be flush alongside text. As we are still (?) designing towards a 800px resolution monitor, these should never be beyond 300px to avoid blocking off too much text. Yes, we should avoid setting a size and let "thumb" do its job, but that shouldn't be a hard-set rule. But there are points where images need to realistically be larger than 300 px horizontally to do their job on the printed version of the page. In this case, I propose that if the image needs to be displayed (and for print) at a size larger than 300px (and all NFCC considerations are met for that, if non-free), that we allow for "inline" images that do not run flush on text (see, for example, the Los Angeles panoramic view). This would need to use some special formatting to make sure there's text clear breaks on both sides if the image is >300 but less than 800 px, but technically not an issue. --MASEM (t) 14:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Masem, two questions: first, why do we ask for thumbnails? There has never been any consensus for that, so far as I know. And secondly, what do you mean by "flush on text"? I don't really understand the point you're making. SlimVirgin 14:20, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I would support a change to the MoS allowing editors to use the image size best suited to the article. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I personally don't know the initial reasons why we ask for thumbs, but I would say that now they serve two purposes: they help to normalize the sizes of images in articles when the various images are all ranges of sizes (from what could be freakin' huge 2000x2000 free images to, say, reduced non-frees of standard TV/computer size dimensions (eg 320x240); and using thumbs from 180 to 300 px help to keep the page layout across WP pretty consistent without having to worry about browser/OS/font size issues (eg, we are trying to avoid pixel-perfect placement).

"Flush" means, as the example at the top of this section, the text runs as close as possible (with some margins) next to the image. This is compared to, say, if I were to put an image on a line by itself with no text running flush along either side of it. --MASEM (t) 15:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

BTW, the image I cited at the top of this section has a caption that is ... wait for it ... 14 lines deep, most of them three or four words across. Here is the current text that appears relevant to this issue:

Most pictures should be between 100 and 400 pixels wide. Generally, use the thumbnail option ("thumb"), which is available in the image markup. This results in a default width of 180 pixels (140 pixels if the "upright" option is used as well), although logged-in users can set a different default in their user preferences. As a rule, images should not be set to another size (that is, one that overrides the default). Where it is appropriate to select a particular size, images should generally be no more than 300 pixels wide, so that they can be comfortably displayed on 800x600 monitors. Where appropriate, the {{Wide image}} template can be used to fit an image into the width of the browser window (similarly, {{tall image}} may be used for abnormally tall images). Examples where size-forcing may be appropriate include:

Images with aspect ratios that are extreme or that otherwise distort or obscure the image

Detailed maps, diagrams, or charts

Images containing a lot of detail, if the detail is important to the article

Images in which a small region is relevant, but cropping to that region would reduce the coherence of the image

Lead images, which should usually be no larger than 300 pixels

This is what I suggest, although I'm an amateur at image control, so please weigh in with your suggestions and we can create another draft below if necessary. In particular, I've no idea about the 300 versus 400 pixel issue:

Images are normally up to 400 pixels wide, although an upper limit of 300 pixels is typical so they can be comfortably displayed on 800 x 600 monitors. Editorial judgement should generally be used to set an image to a size that is neither so large that it "crowds" the text which wraps along its side, nor so small that its details are uncomfortable for readers to discern and the caption text is wrapped in an over-narrow column. Other reasons for forcing size may include that an image:

has aspect ratios that are extreme or otherwise distort or obscure the image;

is of a detailed map, diagram, or chart;

contains a small region is relevant, but cropping to that region would reduce the coherence of the image;

is in the lead, in which cast it should usually not be larger than 300 pixels.

Alternatively, the thumbnail option ("thumb") is available in the image markup, which results in a default width of 180 pixels (140 pixels if the "upright" option is used as well), although logged-in users can set a different default in their user preferences.
Where appropriate, the {{Wide image}} template can be used to fit an image into the width of the browser window (similarly, {{tall image}} may be used for abnormally tall images).

Tony (talk) 16:34, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Nice. The line about editorial judgment is exactly what we need. However, I think it would be best to distinguish more clearly between description and instruction. This stuff is confusing for beginners and I don't think we want to confuse information on what images are with instructions on what we want the users to do. For example, "Most images are 300 pixels wide" is confusing because I've seen images of all shapes and sizes.

On Misplaced Pages, most images should be no wider than 300 pixels, with a maximum for most articles of 400 pixels wide. This is so images can be displayed comfortably on 800 x 600 monitors. However, editorial judgment should be used to set each image to a size that is neither so large that it crowds the text that wraps along its side nor so small that its details are difficult for readers to discern and its caption text wrapped in an overly narrow column. Some other situations in which forcing image size may be desirable include the following:

Images with aspect ratios that are extreme or that otherwise distort or obscure the image.

Detailed maps, diagrams, and charts.

Images in which a small region is relevant but cropping to that region would reduce image coherence.

Lead images, which should usually not be larger than 300 pixels.

Alternatively, the thumbnail option ("thumb") is available in the image markup, which results in a default width of 180 pixels (140 pixels if the "upright" option is used as well), although logged-in users can set a different default in their user preferences.
Where appropriate, the {{Wide image}} template can be used to fit an image into the width of the browser window (similarly, {{tall image}} may be used for abnormally tall images).

Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I think any solution that puts the "thumb" option as the secondary option under "allow the editors to decide" is going to be a problem. Knowing those that love to use images, if you give them up to 300px, they will use 300px, even if its not necessary for an image. You've also just nuked the reason a user may choose a different image thumb preference.

An optional approach may be to consider changing the default thumb size from 180 to around 220-250px (a setting in the WP wiki config, I believe), with the noted allowances for going beyond this if necessary. This would fix most of the "walls of caption text" that seem to be at issue, and retain the user preferences aspect. If anything, we then need to emphasize that it is appropriate to break out of the "thumb" size when it makes sense, being a lot more lenient and IAR-ish about that fact. The only limiting factor is why we chose 180px in the first place - if it's for NFCC issues or the like, we may have to stick to that. (That subtly comes into play here, it should be noted). If the 180px was due to file size and typical transmission issues, that's likely no longer a valid reason of concern with the proliferation of high-speed today. --MASEM (t) 17:13, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

How about starting: "On Misplaced Pages, most images are narrower than 300 pixels, with a maximum for most articles of 400 pixels wide."? Tony (talk) 17:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- I think we've got two aspects going on here. We want to try to funnel images to <300px (what that is, well, that's an issue). The next question is that when an image has to go over 300px for good reason, how do we deal with it? And that's where the 400px is - it's not really a maximum image size, but a size where we now span over half the page at 800px, and thus needs special treatment beyond that. If it is larger than 400px then it should be placed without flush text per the {{wide image}} template; if it's less than 400px, then it should be placed aligned in text. --MASEM (t) 17:47, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Three things about Tony's proposal:

He's right about editorial judgement being the final arbiter. Whether it's deciding what info the pic needs to convey or how to solve layout problems (which are harder on widescreen monitors), the editor can often produce a better solution than a set of rules can.
I agree with Masem that the "thumb" option should be presented as the preferred option in most circumstances, simply because thumbs adapt more easily to change - for example perhaps we'll all have portrait monitors in 5 years.
We need to avoid the word "should" because it's ambiguous - some treat it as "is preferable", others as "must", and we already have enough arguments over interpretation of "should" and "should not".

So here's my attempt for y'all to shoot at:

Misplaced Pages's recommendations on image size are a guideline rather than a policy, and therefore may be overridden if common sense shows than an alternative approach is better for readers. In most cases the default "thumb" option of the image markup is the best option for many reasons, for example:

Logged in users can override this in their preferences.

It produces images of the same width and thus avoids a ragged appearance.

It can be adjusted globally if circumstances change, for example if new types of monitor become common.

However there are several types of situation where editors may find it necessary to specify sizes, including:

Providing larger sizes for detailed diagrams, maps, charts, etc.

Reducing the size to avoid cramping the text between or to one side of one or more images.

Reducing the need for gaps between sections or paragraphs in order to keep images alongside the text they illustrate.

Presenting lead images. If the article has an infobox, the lead image should fill all its width apart from a small margin on each side, and this will often require a fixed size. In other cases lead images are expected to be less than 300 pixels unless it can be shown that a larger size provides clear benefits to readers.

--Philcha (talk) 17:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not in favor of saying the thumb is better, or the default, because it encourages editors to go around removing image sizes, which is the problem with the current wording. I prefer Tony's version, where we stress editorial judgment. SlimVirgin 18:02, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

This makes two separate issues: the legitimate complaint against the MOS's prescription of using "thumb" which presently defaults to 180px, mostly due to 180px being too small, and the behavioral problem of those that forget that the MOS, while policy, needs to be treated in an IARish manner, and that going around removing "thumb" without consideration of editorial decisions is not good editing practice. The latter is something outside the bounds of MOS beyond using the best language possible to convey this, but continued "abuse" of the MOS in this manner should be dealt with in appropriate dispute resolution.

So if you take the behavior out of it, we're still at the case where, at least to me, we want to still encourage and funnel users to use "thumb", with strong consideration of upping the default thumb size to 220-250px, but emphasizing that they may consider other sizes if they deem it necessary. --MASEM (t) 18:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

You can't take the behavior out of it, and it's not reasonable to ask us to engage in dispute resolution every time someone tries to enforce the MoS. The wording needs to be changed, so as not to encourage people to impose thumbnails on articles. There's anyway no good reason to use thumbnails. I have no problem setting parameters—no smaller than X, no larger than Y—but otherwise editors have to be allowed to use their judgment. SlimVirgin 18:26, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

If people are interpreting, as it is presently worded "Generally, use the thumbnail option ("thumb")...", as that we require thumb sizes, then those people are overstepping their editing bounds. This is a human-decision-based clause, it cannot be done purely mechanically. --MASEM (t) 18:32, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

How about changing the default thumb size as suggested by MASEM, and changing the guideline to keep the basic encouragement to use the thumbnail option, but adding encouragement to use proportional image scaling where appropriate. Suggested wording:

In general, pictures should be between 100 and 400 pixels wide. Basic practice is to use the thumbnail option ("thumb"), which is available in the image markup. This results in a default width of 180 pixels (140 pixels if the "upright" option is used as well), although logged-in users can set a different default in their user preferences.

Where images have a lot of detail or small lettering, larger images can be used for clarity. Adding the parameter |upright=2.2 gives a scaled image equivalent of a 400 pixel wide image, making the number larger or smaller changes the image size accordingly. Where appropriate, the {{Wide image}} template can be used to fit an image into the width of the browser window. It is also possible to fix the image size using the parameter |px=300, in which case images should be no more than 300 pixels wide, so that they can be comfortably displayed on 800x600 monitors. Where tall images appear unduly large, {{tall image}} may be used to force a smaller size. Examples where size-forcing may be appropriate include:

Images with aspect ratios that are extreme or that otherwise distort or obscure the image

Detailed maps, diagrams, or charts where text appears too small

Images containing a lot of detail, if the detail is important to the article

Images in which a small region is relevant, but cropping to that region would reduce the coherence of the image

Lead images, which should usually be no larger than 300 pixels

That way we get away from the problems which seem to be associated with |px=400 or other fixed sizes. The ideal or maximum ratio for |upright= should be given, alternatively clear advice could be given on using {{tall image}} which seems to duplicate the |upright= parameter. . dave souza, talk 18:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Dave, what is wrong with letting editors set image sizes (in words a completely non-technical person will understand, if possible)? SlimVirgin 18:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I wrote the above before seeing your comment, but left it as "Basic practice is to use the thumbnail option" simply says what the basic way of doing it is, without saying you must do it. Don't mind if you've got better wording, perhaps "The simplest approach is...." My aim is to set out clearly the best ways to change image sizes, and state what the limitations are, if any. The proportionate method using |upright= sounds as though it may fix the problem of |size=400px, but technical advice is needed. Part of the problem is that the same thumbnail view or enlarged view looks much larger in Camino than it does in Safari, don't know about other browsers. The aim is a simple way for editors to play about with image sizes and reach workable and reasonable layouts. . dave souza, talk 19:20, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. Everything depends on the image, the shape of it, what it shows, what it's being used for, where in the article it's going, whether it'll be near other images, templates etc. We can't have one-size-fits-all. Look at the image I posted at the top of this section, for example. That's a thumbnail, but clearly too large. I think we need to remove anything that suggests thumbnails are required or preferred. SlimVirgin 19:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

This section got pretty long, so I created a new section #Image size rewording below for further comments. Eubulides (talk) 23:13, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Image-size rewording

As it happens, over the past couple of weeks I've rewritten WP:Picture tutorial, particularly its image-size section. I read through the above discussion and a lot of it makes sense, but there are some problems:

The current and proposed text sometimes suggests 300px, sometimes 400px. It should be consistent. The 300px limit comes from old desktop and laptop displays that are 800px wide. These displays are obsolete and are no longer of practical importance to Misplaced Pages. Currently, the narrowest displays in widespread use on desktops and laptops are 1024 pixels wide. Of course there are mobile devices with displays narrower than even 800px, but they use different techniques to show Misplaced Pages images, which won't be affected much by changing suggested max width from 300px to 400px.
Dave souza's draft has some good suggestions, particularly about proportional image scaling, but it also has some problems, e.g., it doesn't address non-thumbnails and it uses some syntax like "px=300" that doesn't work.
It's OK to say that thumbnails are in common use (as they are); this doesn't mean they are required or preferred.

The following draft attempts to address the above issues. A sandbox diff shows the difference between this text and what's currently installed.

(This draft is now obsolete; please see the #MistyRose proposal below. Eubulides (talk) 08:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC))

Most pictures should be between 100 and 400 pixels wide. Common practice is to use the thumbnail option ("thumb"), which is available in the image markup and normally floats the image to the right. This results in a default width of 180 pixels, although logged-in users can set a different default in their user preferences.

A picture may benefit from a size other than the default. Adding the parameter "|upright=2.2" (or "|frameless|upright=2.2" for non-thumb images) scales an image to about 400 pixels wide by default; making the number larger or smaller changes the image size accordingly. A floating image should generally be no more than 500 pixels tall and 400 pixels wide, so that it can be comfortably displayed next to text on the smallest displays in common use; a nonfloating image can be somewhat wider if it stands alone. The {{Wide image}} and {{Tall image}} templates can display images that would otherwise be impossibly wide or tall. Examples where adjusting the size may be appropriate include:

Images with aspect ratios that are extreme or that otherwise distort or obscure the image

Images containing important detail. For example, a map, diagram, or chart may contain important text that would be unreadable at the default size.

Images where detail is relatively unimportant. For example, a national flag may be easily recognizable even at a small size.

Images in which a small region is relevant, but cropping to that region would reduce the coherence of the image

Lead images, which should usually be no wider than "upright=1.67" ("300px")}}

Eubulides (talk) 23:13, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I see no problem with the above (and yes, agree the 300px is probably out of date.) 400px is probably the best limit to stick with as to consider the issues with NFCC (as if you take most NFC, being from screenshots, a 400px width image will get you an image file that is just around 0.1 megapixels, which has been suggested as the "ideal" low resolution image, though by far not a hard limit).

I still say we talk about increasing the default "thumb" size to 250px based on the same logic above. --MASEM (t) 23:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The default thumb size could well be increased too. The above proposal is designed to make sense no matter what the default is, though of course its specific numbers would need to be changed to match whatever the default is. Eubulides (talk) 03:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

If this is aimed at newcomers as well as the technically proficient, it might be a good idea to avoid the word "parameter", which startled me as a non-techie, even though its meaning later becomes apparent. There are several other phrases that mean nothing to newcomers, such as "floating", and others which suggest complexity such as the templates. The style just looks too technical and daunting, I'm sorry to say.

I think, however, that it might be a good guideline if converted into the language of an ordinary reader who just wants to post a picture (which is quite complicated enough already by the multiple-stage process of uploading not to Misplaced Pages but to the Wikimedia Commons, certifying the rights, and then transcluding it — if that's the correct term).

As for image size, my Compaq FS7600 monitor (on Windows Vista Home Basic) is I think 800 x 600 pixels, but I deliberately used a 400-pixel-wide image of a New York Times cartoon so that the important words within the image would be legible on small screens like mine. (Originally it had been 550 pixels wide, but that caused problems for other users. See Talk:New York City mayoral election, 1917#Formatting and the article itself. See also, for comparison, Talk:New York City mayoral election, 2009.) Although I'd agree that it's bad style to have too much of it, I see nothing wrong in occasionally squeezing wrap-around text so long as the text is suitable for such squeezing (in the 1917 mayoral example, it was a set of bullet points) and you're conscious of what you're doing. —— Shakescene (talk) 06:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I attempted to reword the draft to make it less technically daunting, and the result is in the #MistyRose proposal below. Unfortunately some of the stuff can't easily be omitted (e.g., "upright=2.2"), but the words you mentioned ("parameter" and "floating") can be removed, and wikilinks can be added for parameter names like "upright".
The Compaq FS7600's recommended resolution is 1024×768, as per its user's guide (PDF). Like most CRTs, one can run it in 800×600 mode and it will display larger text that way; this sort of thing used to be more common but I think it's relatively rare nowadays. But perhaps this point is moot if 400px looks OK on your screen.

Eubulides (talk) 08:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Reasons for defaulting

All of the above proposals are articulate on why it is good to set image sizes, and make no mention of why it is good to use the default. Some people have tiny screens or terrible bandwidth. These people can improve their browsing experience by setting their preference for very small thumbs. But only if we honour those preferences. When you decide that an image looks better at 350px than your default 300px setting, you're also telling people with a 120px preference that they are going to take this image at 350px whether they like it or not.

There are so many different screen sizes, font sizes, browser layout engines, aesthetic preferences, etcetera, that you are fooling yourself if you think you can construct a layout that looks nice to everyone. In reality, all you are doing is making the layout look nice to you, on your screen. I wish I had a dollar for every edit where someone shrunk an image (for me) with edit summary "bigger image".

My preference is for honouring thumbing. But, failing that, at least don't give us a policy statement that provides a persuasive rationale for only one side of the debate.

Hesperian 23:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Bingo. There is a reason why thumbnails were preferred, and it's so that users can see smaller images if they want to see smaller images. Or larger ones if the have the space; my default is set to 250px, for example. Powers 02:02, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The #Beige proposal (above) addresses both of the previous comments, because it suggests using the "upright=Factor" option instead of absolute pixel sizes. The upright option causes the image to scale according to your preferences. For example, if an article's editor wants a larger image and uses "upright=1.5" to get it, you the reader will see a 375px image if your preference is 250px, and no reader will get an image smaller than they would have otherwise got. Eubulides (talk) 03:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Just to be clear, 99% of the people who read Misplaced Pages are not logged in, and have no option to change their viewing preferences. Since the default thumb setup (which is what unlogged readers see) is clearly unsatisfactory to the majority of viewers here, it can be extrapolated that it is likely a problem for unlogged readers too. I can assure you that when I was using a public computer to view some stuff (and was not logged in), the images were so small they were nearly pointless. Thanks to those who are working to let us have pictures that are big enough to see. Risker (talk) 04:12, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Risker puts it very well. In this respect, it's like our discovery last year that date-autoformatting didn't work for 99.99% of readers, and prevented us from noticing the glitches that lie behind the display, which had always been there for our readers to see. As a general rule, I strongly advocate that the editors who are responsible for crafting the appearance and formatting of our articles should see what the consumers see—they are the only readers who really count. I'd go so far as to say that WPians should disable their thumbnail-size preference, so they can make proper judgements as to detail and text wrapping for each image in an article.

Dave Souza's version(s). (1) It seems to have lost some of the good bits of mine, in particular the need for editors to balance the amount and size of detail in a pic with the need to avoid the uncomfortably narrow wrapping of text. I think we need to emphasise editorial judgement; we need to encourage editors to treat image size (and placement) seriously as an integral part of a high-quality product. (2) In the green box, Dave's bullets refer to both up- and down-sizing. In the beige they refer to down-sizing (?). It needs to be explicit so normal editors can easily understand it. (3) Except for flags/icons etc, I find 180px to be almost never worth bothering with. Dave's text still seems to encourage or condone the wide use of 180px. If you want a good example of how numerous superb historical pics we are able to use are basically ruined from an in-article reading perspective, have a look at the current FAC "Operation Charnwood". The vividness and life of the large infobox image are completely lost further down. You'll first need to disable your thumbnail size prefs, if you haven't already. This is nano-pic land; whereas this is after I've gone through to force a bigger size on the pics, all still thumbnails. The "Handley Page Halifax" pic under "Preliminary attacks" no longer looks like a close-up of a mineralogical sample: now it's an airplane above the chaos of war. I'd have it even larger—the accompanying text seems to demand it—but I'm being cautious.

Norse–Gaelic example still dysfunctional. I still have a problem with the map I exemplified at the opening of this debate. It is now displayed just below Slim's plastic bottle example of why we need to move on from the one-size-fits-all. Eubulides enlarged the map to 1.8 thingies, but I found that still too small to work out up from down, not even considering the nanoprint. I've raised it in the article to 2.0, but still, the print is undecipherable; you are forced to divert to the original image to learn what any word actually is, and this despite the fact that the caption refers one by one to words on the map. It is dysfunctional in these ways. So ....

Font size. Until now, we have included no advice about the size of lettering on maps and diagrams. It's a pet issue for me, since my clients often have to be encouraged to use larger font-sizes on their diagrams and pictures to avoid irritating the assessors. I don't know why people aren't fussy about this when there's plenty of space in which larger font-size can lie, such as on that map. (PS In fact, I find it very hard to decipher the wording in the original, large version. The dark-green colour doesn't help one bit, but even the yellow-background font needs significant boosting. I note also that some editors have complained about the inclusion of image titles in the image itself, as here; I have sympathy for this complaint.)

Brevity in captions. Whenever I look at a caption, I seem to be able to find ways of removing words with no loss of meaning. We have never encouraged editors to be vigilant about language bloat in their captions—particuarly the usual redundancies. I don't advocate stubby, truncated language in captions, but I do think it's even more important to avoid the vertical rise effect where it's easy to do so.

Therefore, I wonder whether there is support for include brief, "soft" advice to editors on font size within images and the need to avoid redundant wording in captions. This could be included at the same time as we get the advice on image size right. Again, the emphasis should be on encouraging editors to skill up and use their creative judgement for our readers' sakes, by outlining the editorial issues at stake. Tony (talk) 04:30, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

We do need to set up some guidelines for fonts in maps and charts, and in fact the encouragment to generate free versions of these in SVG when possible to avoid the destruction of readibility when images are shown at low size. But that's a much larger issue and doesn't seem as pressing to make sure we guide those actively seeking to limit images to "thumb" size to avoid doing that.

That said, there is still an issue of why 180px was picked in the first place that my Google-fu is not easily figuring out from talk page archives. It may be associated with NFCC policy, in which case, then, there's likely good reason to stick with it as the default thumb size. But if it's "just because" then damn the torpedos and lets get the default thumb up to 250px and emphasis IAR in allowing larger images. --MASEM (t) 04:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Just in case it's getting lost in the details, the original problem that we're trying to correct is that some users (mis)interpret the current phrasing of this section of the MoS to mean that thumbnails are required rather than recommended. It is my understanding that people have been going in and changing other-sized images to thumbnails solely because they believe it is required by the MoS. The conversation has transitioned toward discussing default image sizes, but we must be careful to remember to correct this problem as well.

It is also my understanding that a phrase that precedes a colon must be an independent clause, even if it is introducing a list. Ergo, our final text should read "includes the following" rather than stopping at "includes."

As for adding soft advice, I don't think it's a good idea, not even if we can all agree on whether short or long captions are best. We've already seen people can misinterpret "recommended" to mean "required." I feel that overly verbose captions are the sort of thing that we should allow users to fix as they go. Darkfrog24 (talk) 05:02, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

People here do seem to agree that editors shouldn't be going around changing image sizes to thumbnails over objections. I've therefore removed the parts of the MoS advice that were causing that, particularly the sentence, "As a rule, images should not be set to another size ..." SlimVirgin 05:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Nice, but we could use a "the following" after "are not limited to." Darkfrog24 (talk) 05:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Re SlimVirgin's "People here do seem to agree that editors shouldn't be going around changing image sizes to thumbnails over objections" (05:51, 4 August 2009), I'd add a clause: "except where the objection is only that use of thumbs is standard practice" or equivalent - in other words the objectors must also consider the effect on the (unregistered) reader of the size of the specific image in the specific place in the specific article. --Philcha (talk) 06:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Several good points were made in the previous comments. The specific wording proposals that I gleaned from them, relative to the #Beige proposal above, are

SlimVirgin's wording change, already installed.
Shakescene's suggestion to use less jargon.
Darkfrog24's suggestion to put "the following" before ":".

I incorporated these suggestions into the #MistyRose proposal below. Eubulides (talk) 08:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Re "this is after I've gone through to force a bigger size on the pics, all still thumbnails" above: A problem with changes like those, which inserted exact widths like "200px" into Operation Charnwood, is that this makes the images smaller for readers who've expressed their preference for larger thumbnails by changing their default widths to 300px. It's better to use "upright=1.1" instead, as this does not shrink the image for anybody. I changed the article to use "upright=Factor" rather than "Widthpx"; this won't affect the appearance for IP users or for users who have not changed their default image widths, and will behave better for users who have changed their defaults. Eubulides (talk) 08:30, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I made my edit earlier not realizing the page was protected. I've requested unprotection. If it isn't granted, I'll revert my edit. SlimVirgin 09:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for making that change, SV. I don't think anyone here disagrees with it, so I hope it's not reverted. I'm off to tell WT:FAC the good news. Tony (talk) 11:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

MistyRose proposal

This is an updated version of the #Beige proposal for improving the guideline for image sizes; it takes into account the comments noted above.

Most pictures should be between 100 and 400 pixels wide. The thumbnail option ("thumb") results in a default width of 180 pixels, although logged-in users can set a different default in their user preferences.

A picture may benefit from a size other than the default. The "upright=2.2" option (or "|frameless|upright=2.2" for plain pictures) resizes an image to about 400 pixels wide by default; making the number larger or smaller changes the image size accordingly. An image should generally be no more than 500 pixels tall and 400 pixels wide, so that it can be comfortably displayed next to text on the smallest displays in common use; an image can be somewhat wider if it uses the "center" or "none" options to stand alone. The {{Wide image}} and {{Tall image}} templates can display images that would otherwise be unreasonably wide or tall. Examples where adjusting the size may be appropriate include, but are not limited to, the following:

Images with aspect ratios that are extreme or that otherwise distort or obscure the image

Images containing important detail. For example, a map, diagram, or chart may contain important text that would be unreadable at the default size.

Images where detail is relatively unimportant. For example, a national flag may be easily recognizable even at a small size.

Images in which a small region is relevant, but cropping to that region would reduce the coherence of the image

Lead images, which should usually be no wider than "upright=1.7" ("300px")

The difference between the currently-installed version and this version is available. Further comments are welcome. Eubulides (talk) 08:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Is there any benefit to recommending editors write "upright=x," as opposed to "xpx"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by SlimVirgin (talk • contribs) 08:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, as explained above; an explicit size like "250px" undesirably makes a thumbnail smaller for a reader whose width preference is 300 pixels. In contrast, "upright=1.4" makes the thumbnail larger for all readers. Eubulides (talk) 09:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Very few readers have set their width preferences. We need to cater to the average reader, and if an editor wants an image to be 250px, there's no reason not to allow him or her to do that, surely. SlimVirgin 09:24, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

We should not be encouraging editors to try to produce pixel-perfect layouts. There's too many target platforms that WP serves that the work of a user Editor-Using-IE8-on-1200x1068-Monitor-with-10pt-Ariel to make the layout perfect by assigning pixel sizes to image to get it to look right on their monitor will undoubtedly screw up on any other platform.

Hmm. Anyone know if there's a way to have images show up as a percentage of the box width that it is in? --MASEM (t) 15:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Please let's not get to prescriptive here. --Joopercoopers (talk) 15:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Section headers renamed in picture tutorial

{{editprotected}} Please install this minor change to adjust to new section header names in Misplaced Pages:Picture tutorial. Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 23:13, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Done. --- RockMFR 23:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Altviewer rather than checkALTtext

In practice at WP:FAC and WP:FAR editors are using the Altviewer tool to check for alt text instead of the User:Proteins/checkALTtext.js script suggested on this page. To reflect common practice I propose changing "A script for checking whether an article's images have alt text is given here. " to "The Altviewer tool displays an article's alt text.". Eubulides (talk) 23:13, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

When alt text can be omitted

Where the current page says that images need not have alt text, it could be misread into saying that it's perfectly OK for an ordinary thumbnail or image to lack alt text. The actual guideline given in WP:ALT (derived from W3C accessibility guidelines) is somewhat stricter, in that editorial decision on whether an image has alt text should depend on whether the image is purely decorative. To reflect this, I propose changing "The guideline on this subject notes that images need not have alt text; editors should ..." to "The guideline on this subject notes that an image need not have alt text if it is purely decorative, that is, if it conveys no additional information and nothing happens when you click on it. Editors should ...". Eubulides (talk) 23:13, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with any attempt to force editors to add alt text. One reason I object is that FAs are expected to follow the MoS; therefore if the MoS can be interpreted as recommending alt text, that will be one more burden on FA writers, and the burden is heavy enough as it is. SlimVirgin 06:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The proposed change does not change any requirements; it merely fixes a misleading summary of the WP:ALT guideline. There is widespread consensus that Misplaced Pages should make its content accessible to people with a disability such as blindness and low vision. This consensus includes a recommendation for alt text not only in guidelines such as WP:ALT and WP:ACCESSIBILITY, but also in policy such as WP:IUP. The specific reason given for objecting is based on a misunderstanding, as WP:FACR#3 independently requires featured articles to have alt text and the proposed change would neither affect this nor add to FA writers' burden. Eubulides (talk) 08:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I really strongly object to that, Eublides. People shouldn't be adding to the FA style criteria without much stronger consensus, because writers are already groaning under the weight of them. I have five or six articles that have been almost ready for FA for some time (a couple of years in some cases), and I can't face getting them there because of the heavy focus on style. We definitely should not be making that worse. SlimVirgin 08:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

In practice alt text has not proved to be much of a burden, and the process is working well at WP:FAC and WP:FAR. The initial reaction of some editors was also to object, but typically once people found out how little work it was, and how much benefit accrues to visually impaired readers, the objections were withdrawn. Could give a specific example of why alt text would be a significant burden to one of the articles you're working on? Eubulides (talk) 09:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I've replied over at FAC, as it has already been added there. SlimVirgin 09:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Can you offer evidence that this is actually helping visually impaired readers? SlimVirgin 09:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

On a slightly different note, I've seen alt texts in FACs that are humungously long: surely that wasn't the original intention. Tony (talk) 11:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
- Maybe what we need is someone that is really good writing captions and alt text to establish a Dispatch or something before expecting everyone to follow a standard? (I don't question the need to include alt text, just that there is confusion between what that and the caption should do). --MASEM (t) 15:29, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Linking in quotes

My attention's just been drawn to this:

Unless there is a good reason to do so, Misplaced Pages avoids linking from within quotes, which may clutter the quotation, violate the principle of leaving quotations unchanged, and mislead or confuse the reader."

I disagree that wikilinks clutter, violate a principle, mislead or confuse. Indeed, they do the opposite: they enlighten and help the reader, who will obviously be aware that the person quoted wasn't speaking in wikimarkup. If it is correct that wikilinks clutter, mislead and confuse, we should all give up, because that's how this encyclopedia works. --Dweller (talk) 13:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikilinks are part of the genius of wikis. However, WP in particular holds the sanctity of directly quoted material in high regard. This has been argued before here a number of times. Problems arise because linking an item within someone else's text assumes that they endorsed the linked article. Linked articles can also change over time, with unfortunate, unintended consequences for the interpretation of the quotation. Tony (talk) 13:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

No wonder it's been brought up before - your reply makes far more sense than the rot that's currently in the MOS as justification. It should be changed. Your arguments hold water, although I'm still not 100% convinced. Would reasonable people really assume the author endorsing argument? And the changes over time argument applies to every single wikilink in the whole cyclopedia - but we don't stop ourselves from doing it.

Here's a practical example: () The new version loses useful wikilinks for terms like dorsal fin and River Nene which won't be repeated outside of the quotes. I think the reader loses out substantially. --Dweller (talk) 14:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that is an eccentric article! The information about this unusual situation kind of leaks out as you hunt for it. I think a kinder lead would be good. Lots of things need fixing, apart from the link-in-quotation issue.

The more important links could easily be either (1) put in the "See also" section—ideal for this purpose, although the reader won't know the links are there until the end of the article; or (2) mentioned in the vicinity outside the quotes. Or not linked at all, like "anglers", which is a dictionary-type word. Let me know if you like it now. Tony (talk) 14:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll take a peek. I listed the terms that I thought needed to be in the text, but would be unlikely to be repeated, so didn't mention angling or common carp. I'll take a look at your version. I enjoyed writing it - I don't often write outside of football and cricket, so it made a nice change. --Dweller (talk) 15:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the wriggle-room in the current MOS ("Unless there is a good reason to do so") means that dorsal fin and River Nene can and should be wikilinked in the quotes. But not the other words. But you guys really need to reword the justification. --Dweller (talk) 15:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I've sussed this by adding material, without quotes and including wikilinks to the Lead, but I only had the luxury of doing this because the Lead was short and the article was low on other Lead-worthy material. I haven't a clue how I'd do it for a single reference to a technical term in a quote in a massive article like Roman Catholic Church for example, other than by using the exclusion built into the MOS currently, that there's a good reason. --Dweller (talk) 15:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC)