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
Undid revision 337968507 by Tony1 (talk) We've had this discussion, Tony. LQ does not ACTUALLY do this.
Don't split hairs and editwar to make a point. EVERYTHING in MOS "is" or "does" what it is or does by our consensus, since we are not omnicient gods; let's not be silly. And of course LQ actually does this. It's the entire point.
Line 12: Line 12:
{{FAQ row
{{FAQ row
|q=Why does the Manual of Style call for the use of logical quotation?
|q=Why does the Manual of Style call for the use of logical quotation?
|a=Consensus is that [[Logical quotation|this system]] preserves the quoted text better than other systems do.
|a=[[Logical quotation|This system]] preserves the quoted text better than other systems do.
}}
}}


{{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=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).
|a=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 02:17, 16 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. Wikipedia's editors have discussed them in great detail and have reached consensus that these conventions serve our purposes better than those of other style manuals. 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?
This system preserves the quoted text better than other systems do.
Why does the Manual of Style distinguish between hyphens (-), en dashes (), em dashes (), and minus signs ()?
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).