Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/FAQ: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Since American and British punctuation preserve text just as well as LQ, this is not the reason why it's in the MoS.
Pi zero (talk | contribs)
"many wikipedians believe" is evasive wording
Line 11: Line 11:


{{FAQ row
{{FAQ row
|q=Why does the Manual of Style mandate the use of logical quotation?
|q=Why does the Manual of Style call for the use of logical quotation?
|a=[[WP:Consensus|Many Wikipedians believe]] that [[Logical quotation|this system]] preserves the quoted text better than other systems do.
|a=[[WP:Consensus|Consensus]] is that [[Logical quotation|this system]] preserves the quoted text better than other systems do.
}}
}}


Line 22: Line 22:
{{FAQ row
{{FAQ row
|q=Why does the Manual of Style distinguish between hyphens ({{xt|-}}), en dashes ({{xt|–}}), em dashes ({{xt|—}}), and minus signs ({{xt|−}})?
|q=Why does the Manual of Style distinguish between hyphens ({{xt|-}}), en dashes ({{xt|–}}), em dashes ({{xt|—}}), and minus signs ({{xt|−}})?
|a=[[WP:Consensus|Many Wikipedians]] find that using different glyphs for different purposes improves readability. Using hyphens everywhere would make certain constructions ambiguous (for example, an em dash meant to set off a short bit of text from the surrounding text could be confused with a compound adjective) or illegible (for example, a minus sign in a superscript is legible, but some fonts render hyphens so small that they become hard to read).
|a=[[WP:Consensus|Consensus]] is that using different glyphs for different purposes improves readability. Using hyphens everywhere would make certain constructions ambiguous (for example, an em dash meant to set off a short bit of text from the surrounding text could be confused with a compound adjective) or illegible (for example, a minus sign in a superscript is legible, but some fonts render hyphens so small that they become hard to read).
}}
}}

Revision as of 03:25, 6 January 2010

Wikipedia's Manual of Style sometimes has conventions that differ from other well-known style manuals and from what is often taught in schools. These differences are usually deliberate and have been discussed in great detail. New contributors are advised to check the FAQ and the archives to see if their concern has already been discussed.

To view an explanation to the answer, click the [show] link to the right of the question.

Why does the Manual of Style forbid the use of curly or typographic quotes and apostrophes (the characters , , , and )?
Readers may only know how to type in straight quotes (such as " and ') when searching for text within a page, and Web browsers do not currently find curly quotes when users type straight quotes.
Why does the Manual of Style call for the use of logical quotation?
Consensus is that this system preserves the quoted text better than other systems do.
Why does the Manual of Style permit the use of they as a gender-neutral singular pronoun?
Singular they has been used for hundreds of years by some of the best writers in the English language.
Why does the Manual of Style distinguish between hyphens (-), en dashes (), em dashes (), and minus signs ()?
Consensus is that using different glyphs for different purposes improves readability. Using hyphens everywhere would make certain constructions ambiguous (for example, an em dash meant to set off a short bit of text from the surrounding text could be confused with a compound adjective) or illegible (for example, a minus sign in a superscript is legible, but some fonts render hyphens so small that they become hard to read).