Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style

RFC: punctuation when quoting

WP:MOS currently requires one system for punctuation near a closing quotation mark: what reliable sources sometimes call British style (BS) or logical quotation (LQ); as opposed to what reliable sources call American style (AS), and sometimes typesetter's quotation, typographical quotation or traditional quotation (TQ). The WP:LQ guideline frequently comes up for discussion at WT:MOS. This RfC seeks to determine whether there is a present consensus for WP:LQ as currently phrased, or for any of the alternatives that have been proposed below.

This RFC is to decide between three alternatives:

• Option A: LQ alone

  Continue to recommend LQ exclusively.

• Option B: LQ or AS/TQ

  Recommend either LQ or AS/TQ, with consistency in any given article.

• Option C: Follow WP:ENGVAR

  Recommend either LQ or AS/TQ, with consistency in any given article, according to the variety of English used in the article – placing (for the first time) a matter of punctuation within the scope of WP:ENGVAR.

---

RFC survey: punctuation when quoting

One !vote per editor; please use "#" for easy reference.

Option A: LQ alone

Limit of one paragraph, maximum 50 words. No replies here; use the discussion section.

1. Aside from the inconsistency of TQ with all punctuation aside from commas and periods, and the fact that it inserts punctuation into quoted material where there was none to quote, thus falsifying it, having two systems on WP is making our style rules more complex. not less complex. Tony (talk) 09:26, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
2. Nbound (talk) 09:37, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

   No specific benefits by allowing AS/TQ, and plenty of potential for issues. -- Nbound (talk) 05:38, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

3. Jimp 09:45, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

   The consensus was reached years ago that fidelity to the source was of greater importance than allowing freedom of quoting style. This principle is no less valid today. Going back on this long-standing consensus brings little benefit and, in my view, does more harm. Not only would allowing TQ introduce uncertainty in quotation but it would also introduce inconsistency. Jimp 04:02, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

4. No benefit to ambiguity.  Unscintillating (talk) 13:14, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
5. Need some type of standard here. Unlike other aspects where "first editor picks" or where national ties can be called on (cite format, date format, US/UK spelling variants), when and where quote punctuation may not come up until much later in the article's development depend on when the need to quote arises, so standardizing on one form over another makes sense. Having a variation of something that does not have an easy way to resolve is going to lead to a lot of pointless edit wars. LQ has been default for years, so this is the appropriate option. --MASEM (t) 13:59, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
6. EngVar is necessary for an irretractable problem. But this one is not. If you were designing a scheme tomorrow from scratch, LQ would be the best. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 16:31, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
7. This is a matter of accuracy, not style. Our quotations should minimise distortion of the original. Warden (talk) 17:29, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
8. MOS:LQ says, "It is used here because it is deemed by Wikipedia consensus to be more in keeping with the principle of minimal change." That seems like a good enough reason to keep it. The so-called American or typographical system has no compensating benefits; and attempts to tell me, an America writer, that LQ is wrong are going to just piss off a lot of people like me and cause major disruption to WP over what sound like nationalistic issues. Dicklyon (talk) 20:02, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
9. Where accuracy and familiarity conflict, we should strive to be fully accurate and familiar enough. LQ's meaning is obvious (even to someone unfamiliar) and does not harm the integrity of the source material. By contrast, there is no long-term benefit to (effectively) introducing subtle errors with TQ. TheFeds 20:26, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
10. LQ is more logical and consistency throughout Wikipedia is better. SchreiberBike talk 20:51, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
11. Wherever possible we always aim for consistency with the MoS, and I don't see any good reason why this case should be any different. As already highlighted, if we were designing a system from the ground up LQ would be the better option; it's the least manipulative of the presentation of the source, and lends itself particularly well to the encyclopaedic (as opposed to editorial) tone we should be aiming for on wikipedia. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 22:34, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
12. Per Tony1: Using LQ exclusively keeps with the principle of minimal change and WP:CREEP. Options B and C give editors the opportunity to bicker about quotation styles. Braincricket (talk) 04:19, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
13. If it doesn't appear in the original source, don't put it in. Zueignung (talk) 16:18, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
14. We shouldn't go inventing stuff. If the cited morsel wasn't terminated by the person quoted (ie that it was a partial quotation), the quote has no business taking up a comma or full stop. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 02:10, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
15. Consistency and principle of least change per Tony1. Per Masem, switching to both systems will increase the number of disputes as it will lead to arguments over which style to employ on each individual article. DrKiernan (talk) 13:26, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
16. Consistency and logical correctness (minimum falsification of quoted material). --Boson (talk) 22:15, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
17. Yes, I think there's a lot to be said for consistency, and for not modifying something that is a direct quote. But it's not something I would want to fight over. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:52, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
18. -sche (talk) 02:47, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
19. Yes. Both options B and C will lead to disputes. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:08, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
20. Fidelity to the source, logic and consistency throughout Wikipedia are more important than freedom of style. -- Rastus Vernon (talk) 22:20, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
21. AS/TQ causes too many problems with ambiguity. Logical quoting is more... logical. Also, consistency within Wikipedia is actually a good thing, let's keep it :) Kaldari (talk) 06:32, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
22. Logical is logical. II | (t - c) 03:06, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
23. Definitely. LQ has logic, consistency with the installed base, fidelity, and aesthetics behind it. A clear line on this is better for our readers, and better for avoiding pointless dispute. Inserting spurious commas into short phrases or titles of works, where they have no place to be, is just plain wrong (whatever anyone's practice may be) and we're right to assign it to the ash-heap of history. Jheald (talk) 07:28, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
24. The status quo is a good one here: LQ is a much more logical system and one that doesn't try and force punctuation into a quote, thus falsifying what has been quoted. Of all the options, it's also the path of least disputes. - SchroCat (talk) 10:52, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
25. Option B and C are inferior solutions regarding accuracy, consistency, clarity and avoidance of petty edit-warring. Unless there is a pressing actual need or a clear benefit, actual working systems should not be changed. GermanJoe (talk) 11:49, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
26. LQ, per many reasons above and elsewhere. A few exceptions necessary for border cases do not invalidate its better overall logic. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 12:17, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
27. Actually introducing a new permitted style variation would unnecessarily introduce more edit conflict. Also, AS/TQ forces fidelity reduction. — Quondum 18:37, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
28. I am not sure what to do with passages from external media that contain quotations themselves, but I’m sure all quotations marks of Wikipedia must follow LQ. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:53, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
29. I support consistency and think that making a change here would only create more discord. AgnosticAphid talk 21:02, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
30. It appears to me that both styles are used around the world (including the US and UK), so while it's called "British style" or "American style" it's really just two different styles. This makes WP:ENGVAR not as relevant, so there's no good reason IMO to have two different styles. Logical quote makes sense, it's called "logical" for a reason :) —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 11:17, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
31. First choice, with B second. I believe there's some value to standardizing on a higher-precision style. As for C, well, I use American English, but have worked extensively in technical docs which use AE but LQ, so I'm a little uncomfortable linking this to ENGVAR. --j⚛e decker^talk 21:34, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
32. Precision rules. Aye.
    Somebody asked about quotations in a source? Again — precision: you didn't write that text and you won't change it — but you will and are able to – for quoting a piece from there – use some other type of marks: for example, «from past participle stem of evenire "to come out, happen, result,"», or using <blockquote></blockquote> or something... Lincoln Josh (talk) 15:09, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
33. For fidelity to the quoted material, logical precision, and consistency. Reify-tech (talk) 04:45, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
34. There is no good reason to change from a single consistent and (dare I say) logical system to something else. It works well here. Why fix something that isn't broken? —David Eppstein (talk) 07:00, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
35. There's no reason to move away from logical quotation. — Scott • talk 12:02, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
36. Agree with Tony and Jimp. Also stay with logical quotation for the two additional reasons I have discussed below. One citation style simplifies templates that quote text (eg {{citation}}). Logical quotation is a failsafe: if an American reader is not familiar with the logical quotation style they will assume an error when presented with ", in an article, a Brit will assume that ," means that the comma is part of the quotation. -- PBS (talk) 13:50, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
37. Initially, I supported the idea of allowing variation as long as there was consistency within individual articles, but I've come to think this change would just lead to more confusion. We have a standard that's been in place a long time without much trouble, and I think we should stick with it. As others have said, there's nothing broken that needs to be fixed here. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 02:19, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
38. There is insufficient reason to change the status quo. Indeed, such a change may be problematic and confusing. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:20, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
39. Offering my support. This is certainly not an ENGVAR case. LQ is outright correct, while placing punctuation where there is none is outright not; why bother with variation? Obviously, if we're quoting someone who is using AS/TQ, we should leave it within the quote itself. Despatche (talk) 14:18, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
40. Support - Like many computer engineers, including in the United States, it is my opinion that the American style is simply illogical, and standardizing the British or logical style is a good idea. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:11, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
41. Per User:Warden. -- Jeandré, 2013-07-26t14:57z
42. Per all the above. LQ simply makes more sense (no wonder it's called "logical"...) --Waldir ^talk 02:11, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
43. What I've found is that WP has evolved its own style - even though it's "officially" one thing, it's really not that; it's more of its own thing. Also, it's consistent across variations of English, and prevents edit wars over one more thing that we disagree on. We should leave this as is.Hires an editor (talk) 02:39, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
44. – Plarem ^{(User talk)} 13:10, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
45. Changing the status quo at this point would be an invitation to unconstructive debates similar to the dreaded hyphen-dash wars. LQ is clear and easy to implement, and as others have noted it has become accepted Wikipedia style. Best to leave this alone. --Arxiloxos (talk) 14:20, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
46. Allowing the two styles would be a recipe for yet more pointless, drawn-out, aggressively nationalistic debates. This is one of the few situations where there is a clear winner in terms of clarity, accuracy and simplicity. Let's stick with it. Frickeg (talk) 01:35, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
47. A consistent style is something I think we should strive for, and LQ seems to have a lot going for it, not least of which is that we already use it. I, despite being American, see no compelling need to change this guideline. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 16:32, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
48. There is no problem to solve here. TQ has worked well thus far on Wikipedia, so there is no reason to consider changing it. Most Wikipedia articles mostly follow this long-established MOS guideline; few MOS guidelines have as high a compliance rate. ...continued #Moved from Finell's long item and response—Finell 22:25, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Option B: LQ or AS/TQ

Limit of one paragraph, maximum 50 words. No replies here; use the discussion section.

1. On general anti-overregulation principles. As everyone knows, I think LQ is superior, but central diktat on this point seems to produce too much bad feeling. --Trovatore (talk) 09:40, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
2. Both systems are used on both sides of the Atlantic, but most people are more familiar with one or the other. Let people use whichever correct system they are most comfortable with. Also, I agree with Trovatore. Option C is bad for reasons given by N-HH below. --Stfg (talk) 09:49, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
3. Agree with both the above: in an ideal world I'd probably prefer consistency across the site, ie Option A, but am not bothered enough to want to enforce it when it seems to cause so much aggravation over something ultimately pretty trivial. Per comments in the previous discussion, Option C is a definite no as punctuation rules simply do not follow national boundaries quite as rigidly it seems to assume. N-HH talk/edits 10:55, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
4. Per the above. Option C should be avoided as preference for LQ or TQ is not sufficiently correlated with English language variations, as noted by Stfg and N-HH. However, I agree in principle with allowing a choice between LQ or TQ, for the same reasons as allowing choice for WP:ENGVAR, in the absence of compelling reasons for uniformly insisting on one over the other (which have not been presented here and moreover would not be a fair survey without "TQ alone" being presented as an option). —sroc (talk) 11:30, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
5. While I strongly disagree that "preference for LQ or TQ is not sufficiently correlated with English language variations," I will support this option as a compromise that could achieve consensus and majority support and provide the flexibility to use (but not require) AS/TQ in articles written in American and Canadian English, where AS/TQ is the predominant punctuation system. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:06, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
6. Per WP:STYLEVAR, editors are allowed to choose the punctuation they prefer, so long as it's used consistently within each article; there is no requirement for consistency across the encyclopaedia. We should respect the usual style variation rule: "In case of dispute, defer to the style used by the first major contributor."

   It is anyway difficult to use logical punctuation (LQ) or "British style" correctly, because it requires using the source's punctuation. Editors often don't have access to the sources other editors used, so "aesthetic punctuation" or "American style" (what is here being called TQ) – commas and periods always inside quotation marks – is the easier option. It also looks better. The British publishers that use LQ tend to use single quotation marks, so the dangling punctuation doesn't look so unruly, but commas and periods outside double quotation marks, as used on Wikipedia, look quite untidy. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:00, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

   This is a suggestion for how to write that section: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Punctuation inside or outside. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:32, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

7. Let's see, this is the option that allows editors to follow the overwhelming practice in whichever country they happen to be. There has never been any reason given that I have found convincing for the need for Wikipedia-wide consistency, when the proper unit of consistency is the article, per WP:STYLEVAR, so a uniform rule is unneeded. And despite the insistence that it creates errors, no one has ever proven that TQ does that, unless they read the text character-by-character, over-mechanically. And "if we were designing a system from the ground up" is such a non-starter, in the spirit of WP:NOR. So the arguments against allowing the overwhelming practice of many of our editors are, frankly, a load of bull. We don't need to impose any one system, and this flexible compromise is the best solution.oknazevad (talk) 18:48, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
8. I'd prefer an ENGVAR-based rule, but allowing (if not requiring) correct-in-context punctuation would be an improvement over banning it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:22, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
9. Per DL1 and Darkfrog24. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:07, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
10. Agree, let the major contributor(s) to an article decide whether to use LQ or AS/TQ. I wish they would do the same with DMY or MDY dates--let the editor(s) of the article decide the style issues so long as the usage is consistent, and if several editors working on an article, decide it by consensus. --ColonelHenry (talk) 23:14, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
11. This seems the most sensible option to me. ENGVAR is a nice idea, but would probably be a little hard to implement, as we seem to have already had disagreement on that above. I see no reason to not allow editors to be flexible when and where they determine that one style or the other is most appropriate. We'll want to avoid mass changes and personal preference edits, but editorial consensus can, I think, be trusted to work this out locally. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:01, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
12. Oh dear, after decades of writing, I've just learned that the Correct way to do punctuation within quotations is not "Logical" (said with a British accent, I presume). But is it Proper? It's too late to learn new tricks—let's leave it up to the editor. First Light (talk) 00:27, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
13. Let editors use the style with which they are most comfortable. Rules dictating what many consider "foreign" punctuation styles looks like fangs to newbies. We need to keep our eye on the ball. This debate is not the ball. Dusty|💬|You can help! 02:38, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
14. The reader will not notice. Use either or both. GeorgeLouis (talk) 02:01, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
15. I expect that the outcome of adopting Option B will be more or less the same as adopting Option C, but I prefer the flexiblity of this one (e.g. in some subject areas, such as computing, LQ is often used even in American sources). I strongly agree with Dusty relic's comment above: the current guideline alienates new editors; we need them more than rigid uniformity. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:17, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
16. Agree. Options B or C are acceptable. I would think punctuation with a bias towards the nationality of the subject would be the most logical with distinctly non-British, -American, etc. articles (say, an article on France) using one homogeneous style in accordance with the wishes of the originating author or its current format. Sweetmoniker (talk) 09:27, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
17. While favoring Option C, this is acceptable as well. Blueboar (talk) 11:18, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
18. I think that "British-style" and "American-style" are badly misleading descriptors in this context and they fog the issue. Simply put, the MOS should support content authors, and not the other way around. The MOS should support any reasonable stylistic choice that a content author might make. It should also debar subsequent editors from wrangling about those choices or unilaterally changing them to suit themselves.—S Marshall T/C 15:09, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
19. Anything that minimizes edit wars, sterile changes, and nitpicking copyediting crusades. Maximizing the fidelity of the quotation is all well and good, but there is often slight inaccuracy whenever anything is quoted or copied. (The Wikiquote page on Lewis Carroll consistently fails to preserve his idiosyncratic spelling of won't as wo'n't, an issue he cared about deeply and fought for.) Even with the best intentions, the very act of pulling something out of context always changes its meaning. What preserves accuracy is not punctuation style, it is the ability to refer to the source. Respect the reader's comfort--and follow the "principle of least astonishment." Dpbsmith (talk) 11:34, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
20. It seems to me that a major goal for Wikipedia should be attracting and retaining new editors. Forcing them to use a punctuation scheme that conflicts with what they were taught, looks wrong and is tricky to do correctly does not further that goal. And our gain by enforcing LQ exclusively is what, exactly? Some slight increase in accuracy that hardly anyone will notice? Even that is dubious since we can't count on our editors always following the LQ rules correctly and have no universal review system. A false assertion of exactness can be worse than a little ambiguity.--agr (talk) 20:39, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
21. I don't see any benefit in requiring LQ. As noted above, let the major contributor use whatever system they desire, so long as it's consistent; it's not worth enforcing consistency. The concerns about "falsifying" are overblown - in TQ, there's no implication that the final period is part of the quote, so there's no confusion, and it is vanishingly rare where it matters whether a trailing period was part of the original quote or not is important. SnowFire (talk) 07:39, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
22. B and C are the most logical for an international project. Moreover, using the MOS to impose "logic" is like using a nail as a hammer. S Marshell is correct. The claim of "less disputes" is falsifiable by the existence of this very RfC - imposing a "peace" has obviously not worked in the past and will not work in the future. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:32, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
23. My personal preference is LQ, and I think it's called "Logical" for a good reason, but I'm comfortable with consistency within articles. Agree with Trovatore, Stfg and N-HH. – Wdchk (talk) 12:57, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
24. Support per agr. Tthe imposition of LQ is an uncharacteristically prescriptive practice for Wikipedia. Instead of adhering to "logical quotation,"^(!) why can't we just be logical? In the few cases where TQ genuinely creates ambiguity, reword appropriately. It's a poor reason to ban such a widespread practice that occurs both in many reliable sources and many editors' personal practice. --BDD (talk) 16:57, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Option C: Follow WP:ENGVAR

Limit of one paragraph, maximum 50 words. No replies here; use the discussion section.

Option C would require that quotation punctuation follow the predominant or majority punctuation practice in each national variety of English. For example, this might require AS/TQ in articles written in American or Canadian English, and LQ in articles written in British English.

1. Follow ENGVAR for the reasons given above [in discussion comments below]. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:20, 30 June 2013 (UTC) EDIT: Follow ENGVAR because the overwhelming majority of sources on American English state that tucking in the commas is correct and leaving them out is incorrect. Using British/L-style is like spelling "harbour" with a U. Correct in London, wrong in New York. I realize a lot of people find the logic of British style appealing, but in the absence of any evidence that one style performs better than the other—no one can cite even one error or misquotation attributable to American style even though it is widely used on Wikipedia, not even one—then "this is more logical" boils down to "I happen to like this more," and that's not something upon which we should base rules that others must follow. Also, as mentioned, this rule already has extremely low compliance. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:01, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
2. I would also support this. I think it might have been better to hold an RfC asking whether we wanted the MoS to recommend one style over another, or to have it offer both options. Then if the latter gained consensus, hold another RfC to ask whether to follow STYLEVAR or ENGVAR. It's certainly true that logical punctuation is known as "British style," although British publishers also use aesthetic or American style. See Ritter, R.M. New Hart's Rules: The Handbook of Style for Writers and Editors. Oxford University Press, 2005, p. 155: "This style [US practice] is also followed in much modern British fiction and journalism."

   It is unusual, within Wikipedia culture, to expect articles about North American issues, probably written by North American editors, to follow a style that may be alien to most of the editors and readers there. We wouldn't support an MoS that required articles about British issues to use American spelling. So whether we follow ENGVAR or STYLEVAR (the latter will end up as the former in most cases anyway), I hope we can remove the MoS preference for one style over another, and allow editors to write in whichever way feels more natural to them. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:22, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

3. Following ENGVAR is an eminently sensible solution that avoids the antagonism of people "correcting" things that don't actually need to be corrected. The important thing is for the punctuation style to be appropriate for the article topic, and consistent within the article. Blueboar (talk) 19:53, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
4. I do think LQ is more logical, but we're not aiming for that, we want the form that would be the most familiar to readers. So I'd say AS/TQ for US-related articles, LQ for UK-related articles and when the inclusion of a comma or period in a quote matters (to maximize clarity here), and don't care for the rest. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:11, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
5. This is the most sensible option. Most Americans are going to want to fix British grammar when it shows up in the article, and most Brits are going to want to fix American grammar when it shows up in the article. Now, before they do that, they can look to see what type of English it's written in to see if they have to fix anything. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 14:51, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
6. WP:ENGVAR is there for a reason. Let's let the topic dictate all forms of grammar, no exceptions. See WP:RETAIN, as well. Switching to one form or another will encourage editors who aren't familiar with the MOS, especially this specific part if any one form is chosen, to change quotations to their own preference, which would waste people's time and possibly lead to WP:BITEs. Ansh666 05:38, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
7. Style should reflect the dominant spelling style for the article in question. American subject ---> American spelling --->American punctuation. Carrite (talk) 04:28, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

RFC discussion: punctuation when quoting

Please keep discussion and replies out of the survey above.

Templates and quotations

All the templates that exist at the moment and use quotes assume logical quotation style. If more than one form of style for quotations is to be used then every template will need to have a switch to alter the style. This will make the interfaces to templates even more complicated than they are at the moment.

Take for example {{Citation}} it handles chapter heandings thus:

• {{Citation|author=Fred Smith |chapter=Specific chapter |title=Book title |publisher=Well Known Publishing}} produces:
• Fred Smith, "Specific chapter", Book title, Well Known Publishing

The comma is placed after the double quote. -- PBS (talk) 14:58, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

An interesting point, which will need more thought if the RfC succeeds. The Chicago Manual of Style citation examples place the comma or full stop before the closing double quote, so there would certainly be a strong argument that this style should be used in citations in any article which uses TQ/AS. On the other hand, as you note, this will make the citation templates more complicated. Sigh... Peter coxhead (talk) 22:02, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

It is not just the switches that users of the templates need to learn, but also it makes the coding of templates more complicated and hence time consuming for coding and testing. After the initial implementation, as such templates will contain more complicated code, more time will be needed on maintenance (and testing to see if changes have broken the switch) -- PBS (talk) 11:47, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

True. However, for the citation templates, now that they have been converted to Lua, they are much easier to program and maintain. What templates other than citations might be affected? Peter coxhead (talk) 13:14, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Someone has to code and maintain Lula modus (so the problem does not go way). Besides not all templates use a central lula module. I have no idea how many templates there are that could be affected by a change, but take a look here there are 200 in that category alone, and I come across other templates all the time that do not use Lua (see for example here converted this June). -- PBS (talk) 13:56, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

It's a pity that no-one else but us is at present joining in this thread, because if the RfC leads to a change there's potentially a lot of work involved. As it happens the NHLE template should use LQ as it concerns England, but each template which can output quoted strings would need checking and then if required an option provided to select the style. Of course it could be agreed to accept LQ in template-generated output, regardless of the style in text, although this would be odd. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:51, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Peter, in the event Option B is adopted (which is still very much in doubt at this time), there will be no immediate need to change anything, including quotation punctuation in text or citations, because both BS/LQ and AS/TQ will both be equally acceptable styles. If a Feature Article is consistently uses BS/LQ, there is no immediate reason to convert it. Any change in quotation styles should be discussed on the article talk page, and article-level consensus should be determined. Yes, I expect most articles written in American and Canadian English will ultimately use AS/TQ, but that does not mean there needs to be an immediate project-wide effort to convert anything from one accepted style to another, including converting citations. There should be no problem with (a) adding an appropriate AS/TQ parameter to the existing citation templates, and (b) then permit editors to work it out and make appropriate changes on an article-by-article basis over time. I, for one, am not going to on some hare-brained quest to convert a million-plus articles written in American English based on my personal preferences. Let's trust most of our fellow editors to do the Right Thing. (Please see my comment regarding template coding below.) Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:14, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Why would you "expect most articles written in American and Canadian English will ultimately use AS/TQ"? If they have citations using the existing templates, then they're probably already closer to LQ style, even if nobody has gone over them carefully for MOS compliance. Dicklyon (talk) 21:58, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

We have enough proliferation of citation styles as it is. If we add yet another thing that editors need to do to even re-use citation markup in a different article, that will be another bad outcome. It's bad enough that editors will need to be cognizant, under the proposed change, of which style to use in which article. This template mess is another very good reason to stick with what we have: a wikipedia style. Dicklyon (talk) 15:29, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I have to say that although at present I still support Option B, this is an issue which is beginning to make me wonder. All those supporting a change do need to address this point. As one who prefers the style of the {{Citation}} template but often edits articles using the more common "Cite" templates, I do appreciate the problems that will be caused in re-using citation markup. I suspect that if the RfC leads to a change, the least worst option is to leave template-generated text alone, regardless of the inconsistency. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:38, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

It's making me think twice, too. It's not only the coding of the templates, but unless I'm missing something, articles using AS/TQ would need a parameter adding to each invocation of each affected template -- a huge burden of unproductive work. So I think that your "least worst" option may be the only practical, non-silly option. --Stfg (talk) 16:41, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Let's not borrow trouble, guys. I certainly understand why those editors who are opposed to any change in the MOS quotation punctuation guidelines might imagine yet another catastrophic problem with citation templates related to AS/TQ; frankly, I think it's a red herring. I've worked with several Wikipedia template specialists over the last two years, and I suspect that an experienced template coder like Frietjes could adapt the existing templates and add another parameter for AS/TQ punctuation placement quite easily. Let's also keep in mind that MOS does not require any single citation format, and there has never been any semblance of a consensus for a single format based on the existing templates or otherwise. Citations are one area of Wikipedia where diversity in style and formatting runs free, and I see no likelihood of the imposition of a uniform citation style/format any time soon. In the event the present RfC is ultimately decided in favor of article-level flexibility, as seems to be a possibility, there will be no need for immediate changes in citation formatting. If and when Option B is adopted, we can take our time with any required changes to the citation templates, and those can be implemented in an orderly fashion over time. There should be no need to implement such changes in a rushed manner. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

As a template coder, I can tell you that this is not insurmountable, but it is one of those things that I would bitch and grumble while I was doing. For most of the complex templates, adding yet another variation on output style is one of those niggling, error-prone things that are unpleasant to accomplish. The real problem is that we all have to do it independently, and we are all going to wind up with slightly different implementations for editors to learn.—Kww(talk) 20:09, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I've written templates too (although not in Lua) and agree that it's far from insurmountable. For the cite/citation templates, one more parameter is a fairly small addition to their complexity. In Lua it's probably easier to implement, e.g. for TQ/AS I suspect that all that is needed is a final processing of the output string that simply reverses any occurrences of " or ' followed by comma or full stop. In the traditional template language I agree it's more irritating, given that string handling facilities are very limited (and resource costly) – but still quite doable.
It's a pity that this issue wasn't raised earlier, because alternative solutions could then have been proposed as part of the RfC. If it succeeds, as I hope it will, then in my view we should decide independently whether to make template output consistent. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:52, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

@Dirtlawyer1 you are clearly not very well versed in the politics of WP:CITEVAR (lucky you). I have known editors resist the change from <ref>{{harvnb|Fred|2013|p=101}}</ref> to {{sfn|Fred|2013|p=101}} because {{sfn}} appends a full stop which {{harvnb}} does not (making the short citations inconsistent). There are some editors who loath citation templates and resist their usage as much as possible. If this proposal goes through I think it highly likely that it would be hours before someone argued that because one citation template included quote punctuation (",) instead of punctuation quotes (,") that that template should be dropped and so that there was internal consistency all citation templates in the article should be dropped. So if this RfC ends up recommending different orderings of punctuation and quotes, then for political reasons in other parts of the project it will be necessary to implement a way of changing the ordering in most of the major citation templates ASAP if the differences are not to be used a a club in WP:CITEVAR disagreements, because removing citation templates with an inconsistent quote punctuation would not not be a change "merely on the grounds of personal preference" but one dictated by the MOS Simples! -- PBS (talk) 15:43, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I do have to agree that Dirtlawyer1 underestimated the emotion surrounding citation styles – far, far more contested in my experience than quotation styles! However, I would point out that we live with this complexity already. For example, if I create an article I use the {{citation}} template, rather than one of the "cite" family. So I have to use {{sfn|ps=|Fred|2013|p=101}}: the ps= removes the default full stop; there's no need to resort to {{harvnb}}. Variant quotation styles definitely introduce a bit of extra complexity, but it's only a small addition to what is already hugely complex. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:42, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Wording of Option C

This RfC is not worded correctly. Sources refer to Wikipedia's current rule as "British style" and as "logical quotation." The other system is called "American style." No one has offered sources that refer to it as TQ. The main objection to the current rule is that it require American English articles to be punctuated incorrectly. In a recent [search of relevant style guides] all but one required American style punctuation in American English writing. The one that didn't, ACS, deals with the treatment of chemical formulae.

In fine, there are many sources showing that there is a national divide on this issue and no sources showing that there is not. The MoS should follow established sources, not the personal preferences of contributors to this talk page. It would be more logical to leave the g out of "freight" or the u out of "harbour," but "freiht" is incorrect everywhere and "harbor" is not correct in British English. Let us treat all varieties of English equally and at the absolute least allow American style in American English articles. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:20, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

[N.B. The wording of the RfC, and the descriptions of each of the three RfC !voting options, were rephrased subsequent to Darkfrog24's comment above, and to address the concerns of other editors regarding bias and non-neutral wording per WP:RFC. Darkfrog's comment above was the first attempt to more accurately describe Option C, and it was subsequently replaced with a simpler, more accurate description of Option C per WP:RFC. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 11:33, 1 July 2013 (UTC)]

Rephrased but not adequately. The names that are abbreviated "TQ," for example, were not supported in the sources and are so rare as to be unrecognizable. This RfC, which Tony posted while other users were attempting to work out a compromise text, attempts to frame American style as old-fashioned, to frame British style as superior and to ignore all of the evidence that shows that leaving commas and periods untucked is incorrect in American English. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:20, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

• The wording of "Option C" seems to imply that the current guideline does not follow ENGVAR. It seems to me that "Follow WP:ENGVAR" implies that WP:PUNC does not currently follow WP:ENGVAR, that ENGVAR is currently being defied by our (long-standing) punctuation guideline. This is not the case. The current scope of ENGVAR does not include punctuation. The question is whether ENGVAR's scope should be extended to cover punctuation. It's not a case of contradictory guidelines. Jimp 09:45, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

• Jimp, punctuation has always been treated as independent of variety of English on Wikipedia. Tony (talk) 09:49, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, I know that; you know that; those familiar with the guidelines know that. I'm saying the phrasing "Follow WP:ENGVAR" seems to suggest that they aren't or at least weren't intended to be. Jimp 09:57, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

• I agree with Jimp. Perhaps re-phrase the heading as "LQ or TQ depending on variety of English" would be clearer. —sroc (talk) 10:47, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

How about "Articles may use any punctuation system that is consistent with the national variety of English in which it is written (American style in AmE articles, either in AuE, etc.)" Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:48, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

That presumes that LQ is not consistent with American English. But it is, as many sources have shown; and as others I mentioned showed, LQ is coming on strong an AmE in spite of what the American style guides usually still recommend, because most writers are logical and don't adhere to those old guides based on typographical aesthetics. Dicklyon (talk) 20:05, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

B/LQ is indeed inconsistent with American English, and no, you haven't shown any sources that state otherwise—If I missed one, go ahead and point it out to me. Most writers do the truly logical thing and use correct English. In American English writing, that means American punctuation. In U.S. English, British style is a fringe practice, far rarer than using the -tre spelling in "theater." You will note that we haven't stopped considering "theatre" to be a British spelling. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:15, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

You commented on the Yagoda article above already, but I'll remind you that he said, "I spotlight the Web not because it brings out any special proclivities but because it displays in a clear light the way we write now. The punctuation-outside trend jibes with my experience in the classroom, where, for the past several years, my students have found it irresistible, even after innumerable sardonic remarks from me that we are in Delaware, not Liverpool." You or someone also listed the American Chemical Society's style guide, that strongly requires logical quotation punctuation style. These are enough evidence that LQ is used, and sometimes even prescribed, in American writing, and that LQ is a style choice, not an issue tied to which English variant one speaks. I, and many other editors, have been using it in WP for years, yes, even in articles written in American English, because it is the style that WP's MOS suggests. There's nothing inconsistent there, and trying to make a big national issue out of it is going to cause nothing but ill will. Dicklyon (talk) 20:37, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

If the Yagoda article is going to be cited, it's worth mentioning that he says LQ is being used increasingly by people who don't read a lot: "Rather, they follow their intuition because they don't know the American rules. They don't know the rules because they don't read enough." He continues: "But despite the love it gets from the masses, logical punctuation isn't likely to break through to the rule-keepers any time soon. The old way is just too established. When I asked [Rosemary] Feal [executive director of the Modern Language Association] and Carol Saller, who oversees the Chicago Manual of Style, if there was a chance their organizations would go over to the other side, they both replied, in essence: 'How about never? Is never good for you?'"

We ought to be allowed to use the style that is used most by North American publishers if we want to. No one is arguing that people should be required to use it, just that we ought not to be required to use LQ either. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:54, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I fear that some people are (or at least one is) arguing that people should be required to use it, claiming that LQ with AmE is wrong. That's what tying it to ENGVAR means. The allowed-to-use-it option is option B. --Stfg (talk) 21:01, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Stfg, that is exactly what I and the overwhelming majority of American English style guides are saying. Yes I think we should replace WP:LQ because, in American English, leaving periods and commas outside the quotation marks is wrong. As I've said before, I could settle for allowing either style because that's better than requiring British across the board, but yes, that's what I'm saying. It's wrong.

Yup, I know that's what you're saying. A couple of editors seem to have overlooked that you are. I was replying to SlimVirgin's "No one is arguing that people should be required to use it". --Stfg (talk) 23:55, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Dicklyon, right now, using British-style punctuation in American English is wrong. That may change one day, but right now that's how it is. Yagoda is predicting that Americans may adopt the British practice one day. But then, this trend could plateau or reverse itself. Wikipedia's not for predicting the future. Let's keep the MoS up to date, not up to imagination. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:08, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Exactly my point. Darkfrog24, in option C and especially his proposed clarification of it, wants to make using logical punctuation "wrong" where presently we in WP treat it as "right", and thereby get Wikipeidians, not just Americans, to conform to the preaching of Yagoda and the like, who admit that they are failing in getting even Americans to write that illogical way. Hence my objection to his rewording, in addition to the whole idea of tying quote style to English variant in what is so far a more unified encyclopedia. Dicklyon (talk) 21:16, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

At the risk of this sounding like an Abbott and Costello sketch, the MoS is wrong to treat it right. We should be following sources, not making up our own spelling and punctuation systems and imposing them on others. If Wikipedia were written in one variety of English, then the argument that we should use one punctuation system would hold water, but it isn't and doesn't.

I think we understand each other pretty well at this point. I believe that leaving periods and commas untucked is flat-out wrong in American English and you don't. You're entitled to your opinion, but don't expect to convince me unless you can provide some sources or evidence supporting you. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:53, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Is there a regional variation?

Option C implies that a preference for LQ or TQ is a matter of your regional variety of English. Is this the case? If so, what is the correlation? This is apparently contradicted by Stfg's comment: "Both systems are used on both sides of the Atlantic, but most people are more familiar with one or the other." I was always taught TQ and I only recently discovered LQ as a result of WP's MOS — but I have no frame of reference to judge whether this was from being brought up in Australia or not. If there is a correlation, then it seems to me that it would make more sense to follow the relevant style based on WP:ENGVAR rather than on the original editor's personal preference, as otherwise individual article could become a mash of one variety of English with a converse form of quotation punctuation style, which would be inconsistent. If there is no correlation, then this would be irrelevant. —sroc (talk) 11:01, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Its not because you are Australian (I am too). The usual style taught in AU, at least for most, would be LQ. Though I would assume this has changed over time and older editors (I dont know your age though) may have been more likely to have learnt TQ.-- Nbound (talk) 13:12, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Interesting. My primary/secondary school education was in the last 1980s/1990s and I remember being taught to place the comma or full stop inside the closing quotation mark — or at least that is the lesson that stuck — and I would have regarded the inverse use as an error. Note the Macquarie Dictionary endorses this style, but other sources seem to be mixed. It certainly does not seem that, for example, if an Australian English variant is adopted for a particular article, this necessarily implies that either LQ or TQ should be adopted for that article for consistency with that variant, as they are (at least to some extent) independent. —sroc (talk) 13:40, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

This was a theme running through the pre-RFC discussion. Most editors appeared to agree that the correlation was overstated, and that both styles were found on both sides of the Atlantic, even if one style was more common in each place. The fact that the styles are often referred to as the "British" and "American" style respectively seems to have caused some confusion: as I see it, those labels are descriptive not prescriptive. Just as saying that wearing your jumper over your shoulder is "the Italian style" means it's common, rather than obligatory, in Italy. Whatever terminology is used, there's a key difference between punctuation rules and, say, spelling. "Color" is wrong in British English, but using a serial comma is not; it is simply unusual, or minority practice. N-HH talk/edits 11:10, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Like N-HH said. Also, there aren't just the two ENGVARs. Category:Language maintenance templates lists 13. --Stfg (talk) 11:20, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Quite so. Thank you both for the clarification. —sroc (talk) 11:22, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

There also of course aren't just two sets of rules for punctuating quotes either, but let's not add even more complication .. N-HH talk/edits 13:25, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

For those editors who assert that quotation punctuation practices are not strongly correlated to national English varieties, I strongly urge you to review the actual evidence provided by reliable sources. I have spent time over the last four weekends copying and scanning American style guides at university libraries, and I can tell you that the use of American style quotation punctuation/typographical quotation is the overwhelming majority practice in Canada and the United States. Every major English language newspaper in North America uses AS/TQ; AS/TQ is accepted standard punctuation in all mainstream, general publishing; AS/TQ is what is taught in American and Canadian secondary schools and universities; AS/TQ is what all American and Canadian mainstream, general use style guides support; AS/TQ is what is required in American university and graduate school writing; and AS/TQ is what virtually all mainstream American and Canadian publishers use. The use of British style quotation punctuation/logical quotation in the United States and Canada is limited to a handful of small pockets, mostly based on technical writing in subject areas such as computer programming and chemistry. (To date, the only two American style guides we have found which require BS/LQ are what Stfg referred to the "house style guides" of the journals of two professional associations, i.e., the American chemical and linguistic societies). Frankly, the evidence of American and Canadian use of AS/TQ should be overwhelming to anyone who is making an honest and objective study of the matter.

On the other side of the Pond, yes, quotation punctuation practice in the United Kingdom is not nearly as uniform as it is in the United States and Canada; nevertheless, it is also undeniable that BS/LQ is the majority practice in Britain. BS/LQ gained its first real impetus in Britain, when Fowler became its first mainstream advocate and his style guide became one of the backbones of good writing in Britain. BS/LQ is what most (but not all) British newspapers use, what most mainstream publishers use, and what most British style guides support. Given that AS/TQ was the universal practice prior to Fowler, many older British writers continue use it, and there is an odd carve-out in British fiction where the standard, accepted punctuation practice remains AS/TQ.

Bottom line: the use of AS/TQ is the United States and Canada is overwhelmingly correlated along the lines of those two national varieties of English. In short, AS/TQ is the predominant, accepted, standard practice in the United States and Canada; the use of BS/LQ in those two countries is limited to several small pockets of technical writing. On the other hand, the use of BS/LQ in Britain is strongly correlated along the national lines of British English, but not to the same degree that AS/TQ use is correlated in the United States and Canada. As anyone who has employed regression analysis (a.k.a. least squares statistics) in work or graduate school knows, a strong "correlation" does not require or imply 100% uniformity. Frankly, there is no need to overstate the regional correlation of these quotation practices, but anyone who denies the strong regional correlations is simply wrong on the facts, and employing such formulations as the "correlation is overstated" obscure the present reality and the very real, and very strong correlations of usage in the three largest national varieties of written English. If AS/TQ weren't the predominant practice in the United States and Canada, we would not be having these repeated discussions about WP:LQ's prescriptive imposition of a minority practice in Wikipedia articles written in American and Canadian English, contrary to the overwhelming majority practice in those two countries. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:01, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

No one's asserting they're not correlated, and probably quite strongly, especially when it comes to US practice. The issue is whether the "British" and "American" styles are universal and obligatory in each respective type of English, in the same way that, as noted, spelling is. They're not and you don't seem to be saying that they are either. So I'm slightly at a loss as to what the argument and lengthy essays are all about exactly here. N-HH talk/edits 14:13, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

N-HH, here's the problem in a nutshell with how several editors characterize the issue. First of all, it not just "US practice." It's American and Canadian practice: AS/TQ is nearly universal and obligatory in American and Canadian English. Those are the largest and third largest national varieties of written English. BS/LQ is the majority practice in British English, and apparently Australian English, too. Those are the second and fourth largest national varieties of English. Wikipedia adopted a universal prescriptive rule requiring BS/LQ use, even though it is the practice of a tiny minority in the United States and Canada, and LQ proponents justify that prescriptive rule by saying that, well, the use of quotation punctuation practices is "mixed." That obscures the actual reality; use is "mixed" in the United States and Canada only in the sense that something like 99 percent of publications and writers use one system and one percent use the other. The overwhelming majority of Americans and Canadians see an article written in American or Canadian English, which employs BS/LQ punctuation practices, and they see it as an unpolished, incorrectly punctuated piece of writing. Imagine the reverse: requiring British and Australian writers to use AS/TQ punctuation practices . . . can you not imagine the MOS talk page riot that would ensue? After all, by all evidence, use is "mixed" in British and Australian English. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:51, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

"BS/LQ is the majority practice in … apparently Australian English, too." I dispute this. Cite your sources. I cited Macquarie Dictionary for one.

Then you wrote: "…by all evidence, use is 'mixed' in British and Australian English." Well, which is it? —sroc (talk) 14:57, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Sroc. You have just illustrated my point exactly; that's the problem in using the word "mixed." It's inherently ambiguous; "mixed" in the context of our present discussion can mean anything from a tiny fraction of one percent using one system with 99-plus percent using the other, to an exactly 50-50 split. In the United States and Canada, it's far closer to a 99-1 split than a 50-50 split. In the case of usage in Britain and Australia, I think it's pretty clear that the present majority usage is BS/LQ, but a sizable minority continue to use AS/TQ. Based on the sources I have reviewed regarding quotation punctuation in British English, both style guides and commentary, there appears to be both a generational divide and a subject area divide in British English. Younger Brits have been taught BS/LQ, and they use it accordingly; older Brits were taught AS/TQ, and they continue to use it. Most mainstream British publications have switched to BS/LQ; nevertheless, most British fiction publishers and writers continue to use AS/TQ by convention. So, while the majority of British publishers and writers use BS/LQ, a sizable minority, however defined, continue to use AS/TQ. Native Australians, including several strong proponents of BS/LQ, have acknowledged on this talk page a similar history in Australian English. So, yes, I think I am on firm ground in saying that (1) BS/LQ is the current majority practice in Britain and Australia, and (2) quotation practice in Britain and Australia is "mixed."

As for your request for sources, I don't think you are seriously arguing that BS/LQ is not the present majority practice in British and Australian English, are you? You're being rhetorical, right? I have already provided numerous sources that AS/TQ is overwhelming majority practice in the United States and Canada. Do you also want me to provide sources that state BS/LQ is the majority practice in Britain and Australia? Or sources that state punctuation practice is "mixed" in Britain and Australia, notwithstanding the fact that BS/LQ is the current majority practice? Hopefully, we can both agree that the two statements are not mutually exclusive. Otherwise, you need to take that up with the LQ proponents who have repeatedly argued that punctuation practice is "mixed" throughout the English-speaking world as one of the justifications for adopting BS/LQ as the exclusive practice for Wikipedia. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:49, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

EDIT CONFLICT: :Yes, there's regional variation on this issue. Almost all of the sources refer to these practices as "British style" and "American style," though the name "logical" for the British practice is also common enough to be recognizable. Almost every single source on AmE flat-out requires American punctuation. The one that we found that doesn't, the style guide of the American Chemical Society, is designed to guide the writing of publications that contain large numbers of non-alphanumeric characters, which is not an issue in most Wikipedia articles.

Although the case can be made that correct British English allows either practice, it's been made pretty clear that American English is not so flexible. That may be the real divide, that BrE has two options and AmE has just one, kind of like how BrE allows either -ise or -ize but AmE requires just -ize.

So I could get behind allowing either style in BrE articles, but AmE articles should use American punctuation. Otherwise, it's like spelling harbor with a U—correct if you're in London, wrong if you're in New York. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:55, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Dirtlawyer1: Yes, I am seriously asking you to provide your sources to back up your claim that BS/LQ is the majority in Australia, as you have provided no evidence here to support it. In fact, the word "Australian" does not appear on this talk page until this section; it's all about the British and the Americans. This is an important point if anyone wants to support Option C based on a contention that BS/LQ is inherently aligned with Australian English and, thus, should fall in with WP:ENGVAR that BS/LQ should be used in articles adopting Australian English. Otherwise, as already covered, it appears that use between BS/LQ and AS/TQ is mixed in Australian English and, accordingly, either style should be allowed in articles written in Australian English (provided that they are applied consistently within each article).

Further, if we go down that road, how then do we decide the appropriate styles to follow in other English language variants? It seems therefore that this is a matter of stylistic preference that should be adopted for each article independent of ENGVAR (although no doubt the choice will often be influenced by the ENGVAR being used). —sroc (talk) 16:06, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

A legitimate request, Sroc. I think DL was the one who provided the Australian sources in the list below, actually. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:10, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

So far the sources and style guides cited have been pretty exclusively from the US. Scouting around some easily accessible UK sources, which are mostly those for newspapers, a couple of points emerge, which back up what British editors here have been trying to explain for a while and which suggest that it is as much a house style issue as it is one of universal national style:

1. None use the terminology "British" or "American" style. The fact that several style guides can be found that do use those terms does not mean we can assume it is standard or agreed terminology, as was maintained for a while (and this is before we even get to the descriptive vs prescriptive point made previously about these terms when they are used)
2. They all offer slightly different rules, not strict adherence to what we seem to be referring to as BS/LQ (and I know of other publishers that veer even further from either option as presented here, for example by always placing the comma outside)
3. The fact that these broad and non-technical style guides feel the need to prescribe and explain the rules they use indicates in itself that there are not any fixed and understood principles of "British English" when it comes to punctuation and quotations. None feel the need to say "use harbour not harbor" – they take that as read

Here's the Guardian, the Telegraph and the Economist (the latter already in the list, I think). Here's a Guardian blog post about punctuation, in response to the Slate piece mentioned here. Yes, following Slate, it talks about "British" and "American" styles – in fact somewhat sceptically – but it also reinforces the point about variation in UK styles; as does the Macquarie dictionary cited previously, which talks about broad shifts in common UK practice over time (again, something previously mentioned by British editors here). N-HH talk/edits 17:23, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, guys, I've been busy above and below addressing the revisions to RfC question, and I missed this ongoing discussion.

Off the top of my head, I can name five different style guides that specifically refer to "American style" and "British style" quotation punctuation: The Cambridge Guide to English Usage, The Chicago Manual of Style, Garner's Modern American Usage, The Gregg Reference Manual, The New York Times Manual of Style and Usage. All are mainstream style guides; none are so-called "house guides." Additionally, New Hart's Rules refers to "US practice." That's two influential, mainstream British style guides that describe the difference between British and American practice. I don't pretend that this is a comprehensive list, and I assume that there are more examples I have missed. (Please see other American references listed below.)

As we have previously discussed, there are literally dozens of American style guides that support and require AS/TQ. The only two exceptions we have discovered so far are both so-called "house style" guides of the journals of the American chemical and linguistic societies. There are no mainstream, general use style guides that support or require the use of BS/LQ in American writing and publications. It's virtually impossible to find an American newspaper that uses BS/LQ because they all rely on the AP Stylebook.

Similarly, all of the Canadian style guides require AS/TQ but do not describe it as such. I guess it's not surprising Canadian style guides don't call AS/TQ "American style," but no less an authority than an agency of the Canadian federal government describes the system we call AS/TQ as the predominant quotation punctuation system in Canada. The overwhelming majority of Canadian newspapers use AS/TQ in reliance on The Canadian Press Style Book. (Please see Canadian references listed below.)

I have found no Australian style guide that refers specifically to American style or British style, but those I have found online all use BS/LQ without naming or describing it as such. Sadly, the current edition of the most authoritative Australian style guide, Style Manual: For Authors, Editors and Printers (6th ed. 2011), is not available online as the previous fifth edition was. It's apparently an official publication of the Australian government, published by John Wiley & Sons. If you have access to it, it would be very helpful to know what it says on point. The Macquarie Dictionary certainly adds new evidence of mixed use in Australia. Do you contend that BS/LQ is not the majority practice in Australia? Or merely that AS/TQ is an acceptable alternative? The latter is consistent with what other Australian editors have already said, and they have suggested that there is a generation divide in Australia that tracks the similar trend in Britain.

The three New Zealand style guides I have found online all support/require BS/LQ. If anyone has additional New Zealand sources they can share, please do.

I have not found an online Irish style guide, but I assume, perhaps mistakenly, that Irish English punctuation tracks British usage. If anyone has any Irish references, now would be the time to share them.

One thing is clear, however, from a review of the reliable sources on point: BS/LQ is not in general use among mainstream American and Canadian publications. Evidence of mixed use in Britain and Australia does not support the case for mixed use in the United States, where BS/LQ is limited to some forms of technical writing and a very small number of technical journals.

Let's keep in mind the practical consequences of what has actually been proposed: that articles written in American and Canadian English be permitted, but not required, to follow the predominant punctuation practice in those national varieties of English. If the punctuation practice in Britain and Australia is truly mixed, and neither style is predominant, then that would argue in favor allowing the punctuation to be determined by consensus at the article level. As a practical consequence, I suspect most articles written in American or Canadian English would track AS/TQ over time, and likewise most articles written in British or Australian English would follow BS/LQ. There will, of course, be exceptions. And maybe that's how it should be; maybe for articles regarding computer programming, for example, BS/LQ is marginally better. For the rest, I suspect they will eventually track the majority use that we were taught in school and university; that's only natural. Continuing to impose a minority practice on an unwilling majority will only lead to more MOS talk page discussions started by aggravated North American editors, and continued non-compliance with WP:LQ in the majority of articles written in those national varieties of English. MOS should acknowledge English the way it functions in the real world, not impose what some editors wish it to become. Down one path lies reality; down the other is utopia (Greek for "nowhere"). Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:39, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Again, I'm not sure that there's actually that much disagreement here. Although there's some debate over the precise extent, there's an acknowledgement that there is often a broadly preferred practice in most varieties of English, especially in the US (and as for my own position, I've sided against forcing "LQ" on all articles here). However, if we want to go further than that and say that this is in fact a strict and precise ENGVAR issue and set the MOS on that basis, as some seem to, we're going to come across the massive stumbling block that in respect of British English articles at least, there isn't an agreed "correct" British style of punctuating quotes, regardless of what some – mostly non-British – style guides might choose, descriptively, to refer to as "the British style". And, again, you seem to appreciate that, so I'm not sure what we're really arguing about at the end of the day, unless you are, despite that, sticking up for Option C. If "TQ" is really near universal in the US, then the practical effect of Option B is surely that most US English articles will end up being punctuated that way, even without explicit MOS compulsion, because that's the way most editors will write and edit them when they have the option.N-HH talk/edits 18:59, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

N-HH: "None use the terminology 'British' or 'American' style." Actually, N-HH, the link you provided to the online edition of the Macquarie Dictionary specifically and repeatedly refers to both "British practice" and "American practice." So, like the six mainstream style guides I cited above, Macquarie acknowledges consistent punctuation differences that are based on national varieties of English. Oddly, Macquarie never seems to take an explicit position on what is allowed or required in Australian English, after describing the British and American quotation punctuation practices. Perhaps this implies both are acceptable practices in Australian English.

Please keep in mind my goal is not to impose AS/TQ on all Wikipedia articles. I simply want to find a compromise that will permit, but not require, Wikipedia articles written in American and Canadian English to use the style of quotation punctuation that is predominant in those two national varieties of English. At this point, I will accept virtually any MOS compromise that accomplishes that purpose. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:01, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I didn't say Macquarie, which I only mentioned in passing as something someone else had already cited and linked, did not use the American/British terminology – I was talking about the UK newspaper style guides that I highlighted. I have also never said you want to impose "US style" on everything. Also you keep suggesting that the use of that terminology in itself provides evidence of consistent national differences, thereby continuing to ignore the point that has been made over and over about the difference between prescriptive and descriptive terminology (something that Macquarie appears to accept, when it notes – contrary to your interpretation that it asserts consistency – that British practice varies despite it talking about "British style"). My explicit and overarching point all along has been that we cannot define this as an ENGVAR issue because, however consistent things may be in the US, there is no rigid, universal alignment on that basis when looking at the world as a whole. That has still not been rebutted. As noted in my amended post above, Option B, which does not frame this as an ENGVAR point, would have the effect you seem to seek. N-HH talk/edits 19:19, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Sources and regional variation

You know what? This is Wikipedia and no one should have to take any other Wikieditor's word for it.

Here is a copypaste of the search for sources that we did last month. Since this discussion is ongoing (and the old list is archived anyway) feel free to add sources to it if you have them.Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:00, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

American sources that require American style

• American Bar Association (contrary to an assertion in SMcCandlish's essay) uses the Chicago Manual of Style "for all style, punctuation, and capitalization matters in written text as well as general rules of book making," and cites The Elements of Style favorably as "the bible of the economical, careful writer." [1]

• AP Stylebook [2] (general rule stated in excerpt at Purdue Owl; full online edition by subscription only)

• Chicago Manual of Style (16th ed.), §§ 5.11–5.16 [3]. Includes a specific discussion of "British versus American style" in quotation punctuation.

• The Elements of Style (4th ed.), pp. 36−37.

• Garbl's Style Manual [4]

• Garner's Modern American Usage (3rd ed.) [5]. Specifically discusses the differences between quotation practices in American English and British English.

• The Gregg Reference Manual (9th ed.) [6] [7]. "Periods and commas always go inside the closing quotation mark. This is the preferred American style."

• MLA Handbook for Writers of Research Papers (7th ed.), § 3.7.7.

• Modern American Usage (1st rev. ed.), p. 248 [8]

• Modern Language Association Style Guide [9]

• National Geographic Style Manual [10]

• The New York Times Manual of Style and Usage (Rev. ed. 1999), pp. 277–79.

• Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (6th ed.), §§ 3.34, 3.36, 3.37 and 5.13 [11]

• Purdue Online Writing Lab [12]

• Style Guide of the American Medical Association [13] 10th edition, p. 341

• The Yahoo! Style Guide [14]. Purports to be a style book for "international" usage, adopts American style quotation practices, but includes a specific exception for "character strings." The linked page also includes a discussion of "American style" vs. "British style".

[Broken link. —sroc (talk) 14:53, 9 July 2013 (UTC)]

American sources that either do not require American style or require British style/logical quotation

• Style Guide of the American Chemical Society [15] (req. Br/L)

Canadian sources that require American style

• The Canadian Press Stylebook (2008) [16]

• The Canadian Style (1997) [17] generally endorses the use of AS/TQ, but permits the use of BS/LQ "when a very high degree of accuracy is required (as in a legal context), it may be desirable to place any punctuation not part of the original document outside the quotation marks ..."

• Editing Canadian English (2000) [18]

• The Gregg Reference Manual (Canadian ed., 2006) [19]

Canadian sources that use/require British style/logical quotation

• Parliamentary Stylebook Legislative Assembly of New Brunswick (2012) [20] § IV. Quotations. The style is unnamed.

Australian sources that use/require British style/logical quotation

• Editor Australia Style Guide [21]

• Style and Production Guide 2012, University of Queensland, School of Journalism and Communications, pp. 53−54 [22]. Does not specifically require it, but all examples given use British style quotation punctuation.

<addition below>

• University of New England [23]

See Examples given

Nbound (talk) 00:08, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

<addition above>

British sources that require British style/logical quotation

• The Economist Style Guide [24]

[Replaced incorrect link. —sroc (talk) 15:00, 9 July 2013 (UTC)]

European Community sources that require British style/logical quotation

• English Style Guide, European Community Directorate-General for Translation, § 3:31 [25]. Apparently applies to documents written in both British English and Irish English, without distinction.

New Zealand sources that require British style/logical quotation

• Budget 2012 Style Guide, p. 19 [26]

• Guide to Style [27]

• New Zealand Law Style Guide (2d ed.) [28]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkfrog24 (talk • contribs)

Australian sources that permit American style quotation

• Macquarie Dictionary [29]

Before the presentational material (the 's/he said', etc., which often goes with a quotation), any of the major punctuation marks belonging to the quotation go inside the closing quote marks. This applies to quotation marks, exclamation marks and the comma which replaces a full stop:

'It ended yesterday,' she said.

—sroc (talk) 15:50, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Correction. Actually, that is mandating British style. The key words being "any of the major punctuation marks belonging to the quotation" and "comma which replaces a full stop".

If there was no punctutation inside the quote originally, this style guide does not support inserting some (ie it is not supporting U.S. style). Jheald (talk) 07:42, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Option D: American style alone

Why is this not an option? Without it, it seems that the survey has a built-in bias in favour of LQ. —sroc (talk) 11:01, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Option A is needed because it's the status quo. Switching to TQ and forbidding LQ would just make a lot of existing articles non-conformant, with nothing to gain for it. --Stfg (talk) 12:54, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

It would seem to fit with WP:Commonality. People have argued that British English allows both American and British style.

If the MoS requires something that is incorrect, as here, then it would be a good thing to allow correction. "This would make the articles non-MoS-compliant" doesn't matter so much as "the articles aren't written in good English now."

Still, I'm not convinced that British English does allow American style in the kind of writing that we do on Wikipedia. If that's the case, then it would be just as bad to require American style on all articles as our current situation of requiring British on all articles. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:28, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

This is not an option because nobody had ever suggested such a thing. Are you saying it is what you would suggest? If so, go ahead and add it to the RFC. Dicklyon (talk) 20:59, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

In all likelihood, it hasn't been proposed because it wouldn't get any traction. If the proponents of B/LQ's like so much that they'll ignore the sources, then ignoring WP:Commonality too isn't so much of a stretch. My own preference for American style leads me to find this idea unobjectionable, but I wouldn't want to be a big jerk to any Brits or Anglophiles. Even if BrE does allow both styles and not just British, we use both Oxford and non-Oxford spelling on Wikipedia, and that seems to be working out just fine.

But it makes sense to ask: If BrE allows either system A or system B, and AmE allows only system A, then why aren't we favoring system A for reasons of commonality? On any other matter, the issue would have at least been raised by now. Darkfrog24 (talk)

I somewhat agree with Darkfrog. A simple rule that does not require determining meaning would seem appropriate here, as it is one less thing for those less familiar to think about,So if we had to pick one style only, and forbid the other, the American style has a good deal to say for it. There is an advantage in permitting only one style, for it permits formulaic modification by bot. However, I think the proposal is hopeless, and I think this is due to the greater stridency of people in the UK about style--and perhaps a general perception that the UK style is more "formal", and that a formal style is appropriate here. (I see I automatically typed ", -- in defiance of both styles, and I generally do just that because as I type, I am concerned with the unit of immediate attention which is the quoted word, and only subsequently and secondarily with its function in the sentence. But I have no objection if anybody or any bot changes it. What really matters is consistency within the article. Stylistic consistence with WP requires a Czar, and that's only characteristic of traditional publication. DGG ( talk ) 00:18, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Funny you say that, because I see the AS/TQ as more formal. Perhaps it feels like an odd rule that feels counter-intuitive. I associate BS/LQ with computer programming and markup, where quotation marks delimit how a program behaves — it will use the text exactly as it appears within the quotation marks. When I first came across this, I realised the distinction between computers processing exact strings of text and being unable to process style the way humans do, but it was always in direct opposition to (what I perceived as) the "formal" style I had been taught. —sroc (talk) 01:09, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Notifications

• I've notified the Guild of Copy Editors on its talk page, here. --Stfg (talk) 19:08, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

British style = Logical Quotation?

The summary of LQ in the introduction reads:

Put inside the quotation marks any punctuation that already occurs in the quoted material; keep any other punctuation outside the quotation marks, in the enclosing sentence

The Macquarie Dictionary style guide says this:

The placement of the final full stop is again a matter of difference between British and American practice. In American practice the full stop always goes inside, unless the final quotation mark encloses a 'special word'… In recent British practice it depends on the whether the quotation is an independent sentence or included in another. The full stop only goes inside if the quotation stands by itself. Compare:

His final word was 'Let's keep in touch'. (British)

She mused over his final words. 'Let's keep in touch.' (American)

Note that things were different in older British practice. The position of the final full stop varied for included quotations, depending on the relationship between the carrier sentence and the quotation. The newer British practice has fewer complications, although the American convention is the most straightforward of all on this point.

If this is correct, it would seem that the modern British style differs from LQ, in that the closing punctuation does not depend on the source. For example:

• Source: "We regret to announce that the president is dead."
• LQ: "It was announced that 'the president is dead.'"
• Modern British style: "It was announced that 'the president is dead'."
• American style/TQ: "It was announced that 'the president is dead.'"

Or am I misreading this? —sroc (talk) 10:17, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

The introduction to the RFC, and the opening sentence of MOS:LQ, seem to me to be oversimplifications. The key (problematic) sentence in MOS:LQ is: "When a quoted sentence fragment ends in a period, some judgment is required: if the fragment communicates a complete sentence, the period can be placed inside." The phrase "communicates a complete sentence" is all but meaningless, and the "can" is merely permissive. Macquarie resolves all the ambiguities, and I think it's the best definition. It would be great if we could rephrase MOS:LQ to remove the ambiguities, along the lines provided by Macquarie. --Stfg (talk) 10:56, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

But Macquarie doesn't define LQ; it only refers to "American" and "British" styles.

I also appreciate the irony (?) of referring to an Australian source for definitions of American and British styles. —sroc (talk) 11:34, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

1. The RfC is extremely oversimplified and biased, but we've been through that.

2. We're not supposed to use quotation marks with the word "that" (indirect quotes) in any case.

3. Correct British style would be preferable to any version of LQ that was made up on Wikipedia, even if the explanation of how to use it had to be a bit longer. There are sources that refer to the practice by its "logical" name. What do they have to say on the subject? Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:05, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

My point is that LQ, as described here, does not actually seem to reflect British style. To take another example:

• Stfg said of the Macquarie Dictionary style guide, "I think it's the best definition."

(American style, keeping terminating punctuation within closing quotation mark)

• Stfg said of the Macquarie Dictionary style guide, "I think it's the best definition."

(LQ as described here, keeping terminating punctuation within closing quotation mark where included in source)

• Stfg said of the Macquarie Dictionary style guide, "I think it's the best definition".

(British style, keeping terminating punctuation outside closing quotation mark)

In this case, LQ is consistent with American style, not British style. —sroc (talk) 14:25, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

My point was that MOS:LQ itself is ambiguous and LQ as described here (in this RFC) isn't clearly the same as as described in MOS:LQ. Both ways might conform to MOS:LQ, depending on whether we think that

[...] I think it's the best definition.

"communicates" a complete sentence. This was exactly the issue that got this whole thing raised, way back on 22 June (now in archive 141). --Stfg (talk) 15:46, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

To be honest I think Macquarie simply got it wrong here. I think British sources would overwhelming follow LQ in this case -- that's what all the UK-based style guides cited on this page would recommend.

As regards "can" be placed inside (rather than "should" be placed inside), this may be an attempt to accommodate two other cases:

(i) "Let's keep in touch," she said, and left.

(ii) "Let's keep in touch" was the last thing she said.

In case (i), the comma indicates that there was a full stop in the original speech. A full stop is not appropriate in the quotation, as it is not the end of the sentence; but as the original stop corresponds with a natural place to pause, the place where it was is marked by a comma. (This is a divergence between standard British practice and WP:LQ)

In case (ii), the quotation is acting as the subject of the sentence; no pause is appropriate between it and the rest of the sentence, so this time there is no comma. Jheald (talk) 16:12, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Darkfrog24, which sources refer to LQ by that name? I've checked several prominent sources referring to British style from #Sources and regional variation above but none of those I checked mentioned "logical" style. —sroc (talk) 14:48, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

LQ is not consistent with American style. In American style, the period or comma may not be placed outside the quotation marks, and in LQ it may.

We should not use Wikipedia itself as a source for exactly what logical punctuation dictates. The text of the MoS has been poked and prodded by too many editors—including myself.

I don't remember off the top of my head which sources referred to British/L by the "logical" name. It was a couple of years ago, during one of the previous challenges. Upon a brief web search, the term seems to show up in editorials more than in style guides. [30] [31] Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:46, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Going back to Macquarie, I agree that it's simply wrong. The sources for modern British punctuation I've checked basically agree with the succinct statement in the EU guidelines (see 3.30ff). The default if no other considerations apply is the reverse of the American style: "quotation marks at the end of a sentence normally precede the concluding full stop" unless "the quotation itself contains a concluding mark". LQ, as I've argued before, because it (like all styles) restricts the number and position of commas and concluding stops, does not express the full semantics (a.k.a. logic). Suppose Jane has said a single full sentence, namely "I agree." If we put the "say" verb after the sentence, in my reading of British sources, the most likely punctuation is 'I agree,' Jane said. although 'I agree', Jane said. will also be found, whereas fully "logical" quotation would be 'I agree.', Jane said.

The clearest difference between the styles arises when quote marks are used for things like the use-mention distinction. Here there is an absolute and clear difference. British is This is called 'style'.; American is This is called "style." Strictly speaking the quote marks here are not denoting a quotation, so LQ and TQ are misnomers. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:56, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm puzzled by your opinion that 'I agree,' Jane said. is the most likely. The EU document (3.31) says "However, if the quotation itself contains a concluding mark, no full stop is required after the quotation mark" (my italics). It doesn't seem to give a mandate to end a quote with a non-concluding mark inside. Similarly, in Jheald's example (i) -- "Let's keep in touch," she said, and left. -- explained as replacing a full stop with a comma because it doesn't terminate the containing sentence, I don't get it. For the EU guide it's the same thing, and the relevant passage in MOS:LQ is "The period should be omitted if the quotation is in the middle of a sentence" (my italics, again). Omitted, not replaced with a comma, and the example given at MOS:LQ is Martha said, "Come with me", and they did. Am I missing something in these cases? --Stfg (talk) 18:13, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't think you're missing anything, if by that you mean some logical explanation. :-) I've been looking at newspapers, magazines, books, etc. published in the UK since I got involved in this RfC, and my personal experience is that this is the most common, whatever sources say. I don't think that these are being typeset according to rules, but according to what "seems right". In sentences combining quoted speech with a statement of who said it, there's normally a comma. So we might start with Martha said. Come with me. or Come with me. Martha said. Then put in quote marks and a comma to give Martha said., "Come with me." or "Come with me.", Martha said. The sequence stop + comma is forbidden regardless of any intervening quote mark and the stop must be at the end of the full sentence. So in the first case we unambiguously get Martha said, "Come with me." In the second case we can either replace the stop by a comma or just remove it, giving either "Come with me," Martha said. or "Come with me", Martha said. I can only repeat that my unscientific survey convinced me that in the British publications I read the former is more common. Neither is "logical" quotation in my view. Replacing the stop by a comma is perhaps slightly closer to the "original".

Are there any British style guides which clearly explain one choice rather than another? I haven't found any.

Relevance to the RfC: LQ is a can of worms; if there were to be a single style, TQ is much easier to use. Why force those who don't need to do so to use LQ/BS? Peter coxhead (talk) 18:39, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

All these subtle arguments about how to report dialogue, or give quotations mixed with action, are almost entirely irrelevant to an encyclopedia. When do we ever do that? We're not writing fiction here. The use–mention distinction is the most important case to treat. Actual quotations are probably second, but quotations of a single person's assertion, not mixed with any action words outside the quote. Third would be things like A source of dissension has been Keynes' famous claim that "in the long run we are all dead"., where the quotation marks enclose words that could otherwise be used without them, but since they actually were said by someone else, we use the punctuation to point out the fact. Fourth would be scare quotes. The order of these could be argued, but the main point is that dialogue and quotations mixed with action words are, in comparison to these four categories that actually come up in encyclopedic writing, essentially non-existent, and we shouldn't get sidetracked on them. --Trovatore (talk) 18:31, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Will you stop already with the "Martha said" stuff? We don't do that. How to report dialogue is irrelevant. See my paragraph immediately above below yours. --Trovatore (talk) 18:42, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Trovatore: there was an edit conflict; I started writing my response before you added yours. I've taken the liberty of reversing the order, since then it makes more sense. Do restore if you're not happy with this.

Actually I mostly agree with you, except that in practice I don't think it matters whether we write A source of dissension has been Keynes' famous claim that "in the long run we are all dead". or A source of dissension has been Keynes' famous claim that "in the long run we are all dead." It might matter if whoever wrote it were deliberately trying to mislead by missing something off the end of the quoted material, but assuming good faith, does it matter? Visually it looks ok either way, since both are potentially correct in LQ/BS. Use-mention and scare quotes do look wrong to me set out the TQ/AS way, but it can hardly be said that they normally mislead. Keynes' claim has been described as "notorious." – ugh, but "I don't like it" isn't a good reason to prevent others using the style. Is it misleading? No. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:55, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually, Trovatore, lots of Wikipedia articles contain quotations from people. Gender and Chaz Bono spring to mind. If a magazine article has a three-sentence quote and the Wikieditor only finds one and a half of those sentences to be relevant, then this issue might come up. So dialogue might not be the best example, but it's not an irrelevant one either. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:48, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it's relevant. Peter's account deals with my difficulty pretty well. Thanks. --Stfg (talk) 19:11, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Moved from Finell's long item and response

... Either alternative requires retraining experienced editors. Rather than imposing new burdens on experienced editors, we should be thankful that a large corps of experienced editors continue copy edit articles based on the guidelines they know. The proposed alternatives invite chaos.

• Option C (follow ENGVAR) would require examining punctuation ending and following every quotation in every existing article written in American English—which is probably more than half of en-Wikipedia—to convert punctuation to TQ. That would waste a colossal amount of conscientious editors' time, which they could otherwise devote to improving existing articles and writing new ones, for no perceivable benefit. On top of that, ENGVAR has relatively low compliance because many editors, including some experienced editors, because editors are unaware of the guideline or don't notice whether the article they edit follows American or un-American English.
• Option B (use either consistently within an article) would mean that the existing 4,295,360 articles in en-Wikipedia would consistently follow LQ, and new articles would be up for grabs. More chaos. I am not aware of any style guideline anywhere that grandfathers a prior guideline.

One could at least make a rational, albeit impractical, argument for switching to TQ for all articles. Some supporters of B and C previously proposed just that—multiple times. They do not propose it now because they realize that would be hopeless. Should Option B or C pass, these individuals may, after a few years of chaos, renew this proposal as a way out of the chaos adopting either of their current proposals would cause. —Finell 22:25, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

You argue that requiring British style in all cases has "worked well" and that options B or C would "cause chaos." What evidence do you offer for this? Can you show us even one case in which British style provided a non-hypothetical advantage over American style? Can you show a case of ENGVAR causing chaos? (There are many discussion sections in this thread where you could do so.)

You seem to misunderstand option C. It would not require examining ending punctuation in every sentence. Every ". would be changed to ." An editor could do that with CTRL-F. Most of it could probably be done by bot if a bot could be trained to recognize American English articles.

Replacing incorrect punctuation with correct punctuation is not a waste of time, at least not to Wikieditors who choose to spend their time gnoming. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:08, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Objection to current RfC

The RfC as Tony phrased it was extremely biased and inaccurate. Not even one source has been presented that refers to American practice as anything that could be abbreviated "TQ." It also fails to mention what any of the sources have to say on this matter. I've tried to mitigate the damage, but have trouble believing that any newcomer to this issue could get an accurate idea of what's going on from reading this text. At the absolute least, it should have given both names for the British practice and referred to the American practice as American. Hardly anyone knows these punctuation styles by other names.

I also feel personally offended that we did not work out a neutrally worded RfC text first. How would you guys have felt if I'd put my version of the text up? You'd reject any outcome out of hand. I realize that the rules don't require the text of an RfC to be worked out by all parties ahead of time, but they do require it to be neutral and accurate, and this one wasn't.

Frankly, Tony, I'm personally hurt. I've bent over backwards trying to be fair to you and those who share your opinion. I know you want what you want, but you shouldn't act this way to get it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:32, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

By rewording the lead of the RfC, all the existing comments referring to "TQ" now have no frame of reference. Please kindly revert. —sroc (talk) 15:38, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, using the phrase TQ in the RfC would be very inaccurate and could mislead or confuse new contributors. The practice in question is called "American style" or "American punctuation." Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:44, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

What you just did is equivalent to changing other users' talk page comments. What "TQ" is is explained in the context of the RFC and consistent with the previouso discussions and MOS pages, no one will be confused. You need to revert your changes immediately. --MASEM (t) 15:48, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Unless you edit other editors comments — which would be most improper — to change the existing references to "TQ", they will not make sense to new contributors. —sroc (talk) 15:53, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

M--That's why I only edited the text of the RfC, which isn't supposed to be signed anyway.

Sroc--Using the term "TQ" is biased and misleading. The whole argument against the current rule is that it requires editors to use a practice that is incorrect in American English. The fact that the alternative is called "American" is relevant, and Tony left it out because he feels it frames the issue in a way that, despite being entirely accurate, doesn't support his preferred outcome. That is what will confuse new contributors. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:58, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I think there is room for compromise in the phrasing . . . . However, it is pretty darn clear from the sources that referring to "American style" quotation punctuation as "typographical quotation" or similar phrasing is not supported by the overwhelming majority of American and Canadian style guides and other reliable sources. To the extent the differences in punctuation across national varieties of English are discussed, the predominant American practice is called "American style." If you have reliable sources that refer to "American style" as "typographical style" or "typesetter's style," please provide them. In any event, that is an argument for including both terms by which the style is known, not forcing the exclusive use of the minority term in this RfC in what some might suggest is an obvious attempt to bias the outcome. The solution is to reference both terms. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:08, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Darkfrog24: I understand your points, but just because X is misleading doesn't mean doing Y is OK if Y is misleading, too. By removing "TQ" from the introduction, you have rendered all subsequent uses of "TQ" by other editors meaningless. My compromise is to leave the term "American style" whilst retaining "TQ" so that the other references make sense. If you have an alternative compromise, I suggest discussing it on the talk page first, bearing in mind that it would be inappropriate to edit other editors comments. —sroc (talk) 16:17, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Also, every time you change "TQ" to "AQ", you invariably leave traces of "TQ" behind, which can only add to the confusion. —sroc (talk) 16:22, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Dirtlawyer1: That's why my version, which Darkfrog reverted, used both terms to explain this clearly. I don't wish to be accused of 3RR, least of all in the context of an RfC, so I have merely inserted a reference to "TQ" without giving it a name. —sroc (talk) 16:25, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Sroc, I have rephrased the RfC question to fairly state the RfC's purpose and question to be determined, and I have eliminated the biased phrasing the original used. The "once and for all" language has been deleted, and the multiple names or descriptions by which the two quotation punctuation systems are known are now fairly, completely and accurately described. I think my changes are consistent with what you proposed immediately above. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:24, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

@Dirtlawyer1: In fact, one of the American sources you listed does use the term "traditional", which is not bad since it was tradition in BrE and apparently on OzE too. I'm sorry that I can't remember which source that was. --Stfg (talk) 16:26, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Stfg, agreed. I have added "traditional quotation" to the several descriptions by which the so-called "American style" is also known. "Traditional quotation" may be the most accurate description of them all, notwithstanding what is more commonly used in the reliable sources. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:39, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Dirtlawyer1: Yes, fine, except now it refers to "AS" in the introduction and subsequently to "AQ" throughout. —sroc (talk) 16:28, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

In light of all these changes, I have edited my own comment that used the expression "LQ/TQ" that may have become confused between "LQ" and "AQ/TQ" or "AS/TQ". I have also copied that edit in the part of my comment quoted by Dirtlawyer1, which I hope you will forgive. —sroc (talk) 16:33, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for point that out, Sroc. It's been a little bit frustrating trying to edit that section as I have been constantly edit-conflicted every time I have clicked the save button, and have had to retype changes several times. Do you see any other inconsistencies or biases in the current phrasing? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:39, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I did a search to pick up one last "AQ" reference — there's always one! I think the wording now is fair and clear. It does imply that "reliable sources" use the various "TQ" terms, and I'm not sure whether this is true, otherwise this could be re-phrased along the lines "and also known as" instead. Good work! —sroc (talk) 16:50, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

S, using the terms that the sources use is not misleading; it's accurate.

My suggestion is that we take down this RfC and work out a text that we call all accept as reasonably accurate. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:19, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Deleting terms that others have used in later comments so that they retrospectively become meaningless is misleading.

Per WP:RFC: "If you feel an RfC is improperly worded, ask the originator to improve the wording, or add an alternative unbiased statement immediately below the RfC question template. Do not close the RfC just because you think the wording is biased. An RfC tag generally remains on the page until removed by the RfC bot or the originator. A discussion can be closed only when the criteria at Ending RfCs are met." —sroc (talk) 22:02, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I didn't close it. I proposed that it be closed. When you asked me what I wanted to do.

The terms in Tony's original RfC are so biased that they are more misleading than any inconsistency in acronyms could be. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:56, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I know you didn't close it; you proposed to close it. I merely pointed out that this would be inappropriate as it contradicts WP:RFC. I didn't ask you what you wanted to do. —sroc (talk) 23:23, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

No, technically you said that I should "suggest an alternative compromise on the talk page," which is what I did. What I want to do with this issue is chuck WP:LQ in the bin, do some fusion dancing on its grave and get to some gnoming. I merely suggested closing the RfC until we can work out an unbiased text. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:46, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Don't use quotation marks if you are not going to quote my words. (Ironically, you should know that given the present topic.) What I wrote was: "I suggest discussing it [proposed changes to the wording of the RfC] on the talk page first"; I was not inviting your creative ideas such as closing the RfC. It does not meet the criteria for WP:RFC#Ending_RfCs. —sroc (talk) 00:24, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Really? Because it looks like that was exactly what you were asking me to do. As for suggesting that we all find a wording that we could all live with, you and I were already doing that when Tony jumped the line. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:08, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Who is proposing this RfC? They need to place a statement close to the start with a signature.

Voting is divisive and does not help build a consensus. So why it it structured this way and why include does it include "One !vote per editor; please use "#" for easy reference.".

"or for alternatives that have been proposed, once and for all". this is completely against the consensus policy. If it were true then the system should not be subject to this RfC as it has already been decided "once and for all". So my "vote" is to stop this RfC until such time as the very bad introduction is reworded and the structure of the RfC is reorganised so that a consensus can be found without recourse to voting for a set of alternatives. -- PBS (talk) 16:00, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I know this issue makes temperatures run high, but I'm confident that we can hammer out a reasonable compromise text eventually. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:04, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Darkfrog24: In response to your earlier comment, why did you say that "the text of the RfC… isn't supposed to be signed anyway"? WP:RFC requires they be signed (with or without a name, but with a date). I wouldn't re-insert the original signature now, however, since it has been (significantly) revised.

PBS: It was originally proposed by Tony1. —sroc (talk) 17:12, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

If Tony1 wants to add his signature to the RfC question, as revised, that's fine. If Tony1 objects to the revised version, with the original biased/inappropriate language removed and the additional names/descriptions of the two styles added, I would be happy to put my signature to it in order to comply with the RfC guidelines. Please let me know. Having forcefully said more than my share in this discussion previously, I'm going to let others comment without interruptions from me for a while. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:28, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Hang on a second .. I'm not sure if this is the first such change to the descriptions of the options since the RFC was opened, but changing the phrasing of the options once people have already started "voting" and commenting on them is surely a total no-no and will invalidate the process. I'd have thought a lawyer of all people would see the flaw in doing that. That said, if I was being a little more casual about it, I'd at least welcome the fact that the new wording, which explicitly says that Option C would require "LQ" in British English and some other English styles – but not in others – makes clearer what a problematic option it is. N-HH talk/edits 11:40, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

N-HH, as I noted on my talk page, this whole RfC has been a bit irregular from the start, what with Tony1, a staunch defender of the status quo and strong opponent of any MOS changes regarding the mandatory use of logical quotation per WP:LQ, initiating an RfC that was not neutrally worded, was inherently biased, included inappropriate statements that are contrary to policy, and also incompletely and inaccurately described the various options. I readily acknowledge these irregularities, but the existing problems were even worse. We have attempted to fairly address the non-neutral wording, inherent bias and inaccurate/incomplete descriptions. As you have noted, I have also replaced Darkfrog's original attempt at a more accurate description of Option C; given the previous changes to the RfC question to address neutrality and accuracy problems, Darkfrog's comment/description was overtaken by subsequent changes, and would only serve to confuse any editor considering Option C. I think we can be agree that the brief two-sentence description of Option C is more neutral, less biased, more accurate, and less confusing, and replaces a comment/description that was also irregularly added after the start of the RfC. In order to use this vehicle initiated by Tony1, as revised to address the obvious problems in his original phrasing, we are going to have to accept some imperfections. Otherwise, we tear it all up and start over. Frankly, however, my review of the 30-odd !votes and comments made so far suggests that editors understand the issue and the options, and there seems to be very little confusion on point. So far, so good. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:14, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

N-HH, Tony's original text makes it look like the question is "The MoS currently requires one of two equally correct styles. Should we change that?" when the issue is that, in American English, British/L-style and American style are not equally correct; "The MoS currently requires a style that most sources treat as incorrect in American English. Should we change that?" When the text of the RfC is so biased that it makes it look like we're fighting about a completely different issue, then yes it should be reworded and the sooner the better. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:24, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

To be fair, I think Darkfrog24's changes to the RfC wording initially (removing references to "TQ") and then writing comments in Option C (as though they were reflective of the option as a whole rather than personal views) have confused the whole issue. I agree though that Dirtlawyer1's edits to the Option C wording after others have added their support further confuses things (i.e., do those !voters support the amended text?). Best of luck to whoever closes this RfC making sense of it. —sroc (talk) 12:43, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I would add that Dirtlawyer1's edits to the Option C text introduce two significant changes:

• It deletes Darkfrog24's concern that "TQ" is not mentioned in reliable sources. (IMHO, this is a matter that should serve as a comment/rationale for !voting, not in an explanation of the option.)
• It specifies which punctuation style is pegged with US English, Canadian English and British English, which were not previously specified. (Whether or not these are valid is discussed further down; how this is to be applied to other English variants is another question.)

Changing the wording makes it difficult/impossible to know whether Darkfrog24, SlimVirgin and Blueboar agree with the new wording — and whether others might have !voted for this option had this been the wording earlier — so the reliability of the RfC is now open to question. Nonetheless, this does not mean that the RfC should be closed nor that lessons cannot be salvaged from it. —sroc (talk) 12:51, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Wanting to salvage this as best possible without doing any further damage, can I suggest:

• reverting the original text for Option C as inserted by Darkfrog24 but marking it as a numbered comment by Darkfrog24;
• deleting the text later inserted by Dirtlawyer1, which can be re-introduced in the discussion section if necessary.

Is this reasonable? —sroc (talk) 12:56, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Sroc, the changes, while I agree with them, were not my idea, but originated with Stfg. Everyone is trying to do their best to use an imperfect RfC vehicle, and to accommodate different editors' good-faith concerns on the fly. Of course, all of these issues should have been raised and addressed before the RfC was opened, but they weren't. No one had an opportunity to comment on the phrasing of the RfC before it was posted. Your concerns regarding Slim Virgin, Blueboar and Darkfrog's comments are noted. Would you agree that your concerns would be addressed or at least lessened if each of those three editors validated their comments in light of the rephrasing? Darkfrog is obviously an active participant in these discussions, and will no doubt confirm that his preferences and !vote have not changed. The simple resolution would be to ask to Slim and Blue to review the changes and confirm their previous preferences and !votes. What are your thoughts? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:02, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

N.B. Sroc, please note that Darkfrog's comment/Option C description was added after the RfC opened, too. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:04, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

• Messaging BB and SV and asking them whether or not they'd still support option C. There are only two of them.

One problem with DL's changes is that they don't acknowledge that an ENGVAR-based rule could just as easily be require-AmE-in-AmE-but-either-style-in-BrE. I remember SV stating some opinions about that a few years back. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:04, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Just to clarify my view... While I prefer Option C (an ENGVAR based rule) ... I have no real objection to the more flexible Option B. To me, the really important thing is for each individual article to settle on a standard punctuation style... I don't really care which is chosen. Editors at the article level can determine what is the most appropriate. As long as they choose one and stick to it consistently within the article, I am content (it would be jarring to use multiple styles within a single article). I don't think it is necessary to impose one WP wide punctuation style for use across all articles. That just leads to unnecessary arguments. Blueboar (talk) 13:44, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Blue, while you're here, can you please review the revised introductory comment/explanation of Option C? Can you confirm that the revised comment/explanation does not change your preferences or !vote? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:49, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Consider it confirmed. C would be my first choice... B would be a close second. Blueboar (talk) 18:43, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I did suggest to Dirtlawyer1 that it would be good to clarify option C, so I apologise if I've helped add to the confusion. However, option C before DL1's changes was completely meaningless, especially in that its prescriptive intention was completely unclear. Those who took part in the discussion in the Four options section above will have realised that option C conflates options 2 and 3 from that discussion. That conflation was a bad idea. It seems to me that we are now left with three choices: live with the phrasing we have now; revert all the way back to the original phrasing of the RFC (with all its ambiguity); or ask a neutral admin to close this one so that we can have the one we want?

My view is to stick with this one, because, heck, we don't even know which one we want. The previous discussion of that wasn't converging at all. The most sensible thing that has been said in this RFC, imho, is Dusty's "We need to keep our eye on the ball. This debate is not the ball." We're wasting time on pantomime, and have been for several days. --Stfg (talk) 13:53, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I know several editors, myself included, have made changes to the text that came before them trying to improve/correct/restore. The result is far from ideal, but I assume all involved are acting in good faith. I apologise for whatever contribution I have had to the confusion.

Incidentally, the explanations for Option C still do not account for required/recommended use in the 11+ other variations of English. Does "Follow ENGVAR" now mean "Use AS/TQ if adopting US English, otherwise choose BS/LQ or AS/TQ at will"? This is precisely why I would have preferred such discussion to appear in the discussion section rather than the !vote section (where replies are discouraged). —sroc (talk) 13:56, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

For all its flaws, I do think there are valuable findings from the RfC so far:

• Broadly, the preferred option is Option B, the least prescriptive of the alternatives. (Proponents take the view that there are two acceptable styles, either of which should be acceptable, provided that each article is consistent.)
• Of the few who prefer Option C, at least some seem to be willing to accept Option B as an alternative. (This also seems sensible since it is unclear, or subject to disagreement, as to which style would be appropriate for many variants of English.)
• Option A requires the so-called "British style" even in articles when US English is adopted. (This represents the status quo, which proponents consider is appropriate to retain in order to ensure consistency across WP regardless of ENGVAR.)

The tide therefore seems to be in favour of allowing both styles as alternatives rather than prescribing one across the board, although not by an overwhelming majority. Hopefully some stability in the wording will encourage more useful !voting and commentary. —sroc (talk) 14:11, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Sroc, acting on Stfg's concerns, with which I agree, I believe the current two-sentence Option C description is an improvement. If Option C were implemented, which seems unlikely given the current !voting trends, it is the clear intent of its proponents that punctuation practice would track the predominant practice in American and Canadian English (i.e. AS/TQ). I don't think anyone would argue this point. The issue real is what to do with everyone else. Yes, BS/LQ is the current majority practice in the UK, but it is not the overwhelming majority practice as it in North America; AS/TQ remains an acceptable alternative, and there are several well-defined pockets/niches where it is still the majority use (i.e. British fiction). As you and others have pointed out, this introduces multiple complications with the creation and interpretation of an ENGVAR-based rule. I suspect, but do not know, that there may be similar complications with Australian and New Zealand English. We really have no evidence for usage in Irish English or the other smaller national varieties of English, and there may be no well-defined majority style for those varieties.

Having acknowledged that, how do we resolve the present issue regarding the phrasing of the Option C description? I suggest that we leave it as is, because it accurately reflects the proponent's intent, if not all of the option's details (as it remains to be determined what the majority practice is in many of the smaller national varieties). Furthermore, if BS/LQ is the current majority if not predominant practice in the UK, it is difficult to describe how a split of styles might be used in British English articles. In any event, all of this builds a stronger case for Option B, recognizing the complications of a mandatory ENGVAR-based solution per Option C. Sroc, in your opinion, would having Blueboar and Slim Virgin confirm their preferences and !votes address the issues raised, even if somewhat imperfectly? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:27, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Well you don't need my approval so my input is rather unnecessary. However, since you asked, as I see it, for the purpose of this RfC, Option C is based on the principle that the choice of BS/LQ or AS/TQ should follow the relevant ENGVAR (where applicable); the question of which style applies to each ENGVAR is a separate question and should be discussed separately in the discussion section below. Different editors who would prefer Option C (not limited to those who have already signed) may have differences of opinion. For example, an editor might be discouraged from !voting for Option C if they believe that British English should always follow BS/LQ but disagree that US English should always follow AS/LQ. I would suggest the following:

Option C would require that quotation punctuation follow the predominant or majority punctuation practice in each national variety of English. For instance, this might require AS/TQ would be required in articles written in American or Canadian English, and LQ would be required in articles written in British English and most other national varieties of English.

But again, that's just my view. —sroc (talk) 14:44, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, I would be more willing to support Option C if: (1) it were worded as I suggested above; and (2) it allowed for either style to be adopted within ENGVARs where there is not a predominant (near universal) style. However, I have some reservations with some of the correlations being suggested. For example, I might not support Option C if it required BS/LQ in Australian English, as I am not convinced that these are sufficiently correlated given the variations between both styles in Australian English, as discussed above. —sroc (talk) 14:53, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Sroc, as one of the good-faith editors who is also doing his best to work through an imperfect situation, your view means a great deal to me and others. I think your suggested language above is an improvement on several levels, and I will implement it immediately. I will also ask Blueboar and Slim Virgin to confirm their previous preferences and !votes. I will also pray to the Wiki gods that we may now settle into a normal pattern of comments and !voting. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:59, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Why thank you for the kind words. —sroc (talk) 15:17, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

The other shoe: single vs double quotation marks

Most of the sources that contrast British and American quotation styles focus on the double-quote versus single-quote issue. I fear that the current attempt to bifurcate WP's quote style, and put Engvar nationalist labels on it, is going to lead to the obvious next step of also bifurcating WP's double/single style, whether people are saying so now or not. I think that would be a terribe idea. But for those who think the American style is being short-changed in WP, keep in mind that on this issue that American way was adopted over the British. We have lived happily for years with this hybrid compromise style; let's not throw that stability and uniformity out. Dicklyon (talk) 22:04, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but there was an actual reason for banning single quotation marks. They mess with search functions. With the WP:LQ issue, some of the proponents of British/L punctuation have claimed that the American system causes problems, but no one has ever been able to show any non-hypothetical, non-imaginary cases. With the single-vs-double issue, anyone can run a search and see for themselves that the problem that single quotes cause is real.

With single-vs-double, the issue is whether this problem is big enough to be worth banning one of two options that are considered equally correct in British English. If someone wants to write a correctly punctuated British English article, they can use double quotes and do it. With the WP:LQ issue, the question is whether an entirely imaginary problem is worth banning the only option that is considered correct in American English. If someone wants to write a correctly punctuated American English article, too bad!

That being said, the minute that enough of the browsers become sufficiently advanced for this to no longer be an issue, I could get behind allowing either style in BrE articles. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:34, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

@Dicklyon: A more relevant example is em-dashes versus spaced en-dashes. Em-dashes are common in American punctuation but are rarely used in modern British punctuation, and some style guides forbid them (e.g. [32]). Did we choose one style and impose it? No. The MOS allows either to be used consistently. We've lived happily for years with this flexibility. And so we should with LQ and TQ/AS. Peter coxhead (talk) 23:07, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Rarely used? How so? Some people are attempting to tease out UK–US issues when in fact it's not so black and white. Some US publications use spaced en dash. And Oxford's New Hart's Rules (UK equivalent of CMOS) says that "Oxford and most US publishers use a closed-up em rule as a parenthetical dash; other British publishers use the en rule with space either side." (New Hart's Rules, current edition 2005, 4.11.2, p. 80) -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 12:55, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, both styles are common in both English variants. Microsoft Word even comes with auto-correct support for both styles, not tied to their British/American region options. I'd be happy if WP would choose one dash style or the other, but we didn't, so when I edit I just try to move toward consistency in an article. It was not an ENGVAR issue. Dicklyon (talk) 17:18, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually I deny that em-dashes are common in British English. Like Oxford spelling the em-dash is restricted to a few publishers. Most British publishers use a spaced en-dash. I'd be happy to agree to WP choosing a single style, provided it was the spaced en-dash of course. Anyway, we're rather getting off the RfC issue. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:14, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Unspaced em dashes were common in the British press as recently as 1973 and they were certainly common in books before then. In the case of newspapers, their use may have been tied to consistency with wire service copy and/or the lack of en dashes in the character set. As far as I know, the Linotype didn't have an en dash, except possibly in the pi case. Similarly, phototypsetters in 1973 were probably restricted to TTS code with en dashes not available – I know the Compugraphic units I worked with had a severely limited character set. Modal Jig (talk) 22:50, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'd describe "1973" as "recent", :-) but you confirm my belief that there have been notable changes in British style, which were largely in place by the beginning of the 1990s. Before, British and American typographic styles in printed works were more similar. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:54, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

American punctuation and errors/ambiguity—evidence?

Many of the people supporting the current rule are citing the idea that American-style punctuation is associated with errors, misquotations and ambiguity. Can anyone offer any evidence of this or is it just an assumption? WP:LQ has pretty low compliance on Wikipedia, and there's plenty of American punctuation in the article space. Has anyone ever seen it cause any ambiguity or other problems? It would be a shame to sacrifice correct punctuation to correct a nonexistent problem. Are there any confirmed sightings? Absence of evidence is one thing, yes, but there is also some evidence of absence: [33] (Last paragraph.) Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:21, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Almost any quote in AS/TQ is an example of an error or ambiguity, since often a period is wrongly included in a quote, or you can't tell if the period (or comma) belongs in the quote or not. Dicklyon (talk) 04:34, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

But that's the point: it's not "wrong". The period is part of the quote mark, not the text. A complete sentence is not a literal character string; placing something in between the inverted commas does not inherently make it part of the quoted text. oknazevad (talk) 04:46, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I wouldn't call that an error or ambiguity, Dicklyon. In American English, it's understood that the period or comma is part of the quotation process. It's like saying that the quotation mark itself is an error. Also, British punctuation doesn't tell us where the ending periods and commas were either because they're usually not shown. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:57, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

It may not be an "error" (in that it conforms to the TQ rule) but it is ambiguous. It may be understood that full stops and commas get included by the TQ process but not all of them are there for that reason. Such a punctuation mark may be there because it belongs there (in the sense that it's part of the quote). Therefore with TQ you don't always know whether the full stop or comma is there because it's part of the quote or because it got there by the TQ process. This is the ambiguity. It's an ambiguity we've happily done without at WP for about a decade. I reckon we can happily continue to do without it. Jimp 05:10, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

1. We haven't "done without it." American punctuation is used throughout Wikipedia, even in featured articles, even on their day on the front page. What I'm trying to point out here is that if there's a material absence of problems despite the widespread presence of American punctuation, then maybe American punctuation doesn't cause problems. 2. Neither the sentence "Carefree" means "free of care and anxiety". nor the sentence "Carefree" means "free of care and anxiety." tells me whether the period after "anxiety" was present in the original text. In the first case, British rules require that it be placed outside the quotation marks and in the second case American rules require that it be placed inside. Neither style tells me whether the period was present in the original or not. In both cases, I must look at the original text in order to see how it was punctuated. Darkfrog24 (talk) 05:24, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

"Carefree" means "free of care and anxiety." does not even seem to be an example of quotation. But if it was, in LQ, you wouldn't have the period outside the quote mark if it was part of the original. Of course, if you allow both ways, then the reader would often have no idea which way he is looking at, and the logic would thereby be defeated, in the name of typographical prettiness. Dicklyon (talk) 05:45, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

... "prettiness" that isn't even that pretty (beauty being in the eye of the beholder; TQ looks ugly to me). Sure, "Carefree" means "free of care and anxiety"./"Carefree" means "free of care and anxiety." is an example of a sentence where it's obvious that the full stop belongs to the larger sentence. Take, on the other hand, the sentence Bob said "Dogs stink."; with LQ I would know that that was Bob's whole sentence but with TQ I wouldn't. The ambiguity caused by TQ is the problem. Allowing both makes things even worse. Yes, up till now TQ may have slipped through (in contradiction to MOS) but at least we've had the option of tidying the mess up (not always easy because of TQ's inherant ambiguity). If both are allowed we'll have no clue. Jimp 07:05, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Both might not be allowed now, but both are certainly present now. And in both punctuation practices, to tell whether or not that was Bob's whole sentence, I have to look at the original text. Placement according to sense means placement according to sense, not original location. Because "Dogs stink" is a complete sentence, then the period is placed within the quotation marks, even with British rules.

Also, Jimp, you've provided yet another hypothetical example. It amounts to "Well this looks like this would cause problems. Why wouldn't it?" Have you ever seen that American punctuation does cause any problems?

You're thinking like a logician. I want you to think like a scientist for a minute. No matter how sensible or beautiful a hypothesis is, if it contradicts the observable results, then it's wrong. So far, the observable results are a hundred and fifty years of no measurable trouble. Have you observed anything that contradicts that? Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:16, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

@Jimp: consider Bob said, "John stinks." In that case you can't tell whether the quote was originally a full sentence, because "John" is always capitalized. All you know, if the author followed LQ, is that the quoted material is the end of a sentence. The actual sentence might be "Alice is pretty, Bob is OK, and John stinks." — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:49, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Darkfrog, we're using a different sense of "sense". I'm saying LQ places full stops and commas according to the sense i.e. the meaning of the sentence. I think you're talking about sense as in common sense. You're suggesting that to follow TQ is the sensible approach because that's the norm in American English. I get it, I might not agree but I get it; I'm just using the same word to talk about something completely different. I know you won't be happy until I find you a verifiable source documenting some major catastrophe resultant from TQ inherent uncertainties. I'm saying that the uncertainty is in itself problem enough (especially on a website whose aim is to give information). Jimp 03:03, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

No I am not talking about common sense. I am using "sense" as in the sense described by Fowler and Fowler. In the sentence "Carefree" means "free from care and anxiety,"' British rules would require that the punctuation be placed outside the quotation mark after "anxiety" for the same reason that a question mark would be placed outside. That is what I mean by sense.

Using American punctuation is required in American English, not merely the norm.

A major catastrophe would be something, but so far no one's even found a minor inconvenience. How could an imagined uncertainly be "problem enough" when there are no problems at all? Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:34, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

If we're talking about the same sense of "sense", I'm not sure what you're trying to say, sorry. The uncertainty is real and a problem in itself. Claiming this or that to be required in this or that dialect strikes me as being a rather prescriptivist view of language. A given style might be required by a certain publisher or academic body (e.g. WP requires LQ) but there exists no official rules for American English (nor for British, Canadian, Australian, etc.). Jimp 05:36, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Jimp, there is a whole thread full of style guides up there that say yes there are official written rules for American English. Why do you think they don't count? Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:50, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Because I'm not a prescriptivist. Jimp 07:28, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not a prescriptivist either. That's why I support Option B. The prescriptivists here are those like you who want to prescribe LQ/BS for all articles, when there are clearly two distinct styles in use in the English-speaking world, highly correlated with, but not unique to, ENGVARs. Peter coxhead 09:46, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Then, Jimp, it is not that "there exists no official rules." It's that you prefer to ignore them and to require others to do so as well. Darkfrog24 (talk) 11:36, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

There's a distinction between prescribing how a language or dialect should be used in general and how it should be used in a given publication, on a given website, etc. Jimp 09:02, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok, yes, you're right of course: there is such a distinction (and in this specific instance Darkfrog24 is wrong to imply there are "official" rules covering American English in general). But when there is prescription in Wikipedia, which explicitly allows different ENGVARs to be used, it needs to have very strong justification if it is to over-ride the overwhelming prescriptions for other publications in that ENGVAR. My contention is that these strong justifications have not been provided, so we should not be prescriptivists. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:37, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I didn't imply that American English has official rules; I said so flat-out. The official rules of American English exist and they say to tuck in those commas. We have a whole list of sources in the thread. If you want me to believe that American English does not have official rules, then show me sources at least as good that support that position. We can swap opinions about how official is official, but so far, the sources say that such rules exist.

There is a difference between a given publication choosing from among correct styles, say that it will use the serial comma, and imposing an incorrect style for no material reason. The other difference is that Wikipedia is not an organization with a hierarchy. At a publishing company, the boss can make a unilateral decision because he or she is the boss and presumably earned his or her position over the employees. Asking volunteers to go along with the pet peeve of someone who is at least technically their equal is another matter. Why should one person's personal preferences matter more than another's? On Wikipedia, we solve that issue by deferring to reliable sources, and the sources say to tuck in commas in American English. Darkfrog24 (talk) 11:55, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

There are some examples on pages 420 – 422 in G.K. Pullum's Punctuation and Human Freedom. Here's one.

Consider the following:

• Shakespeare's King Richard III contains the line "Now is the winter of our discontent."

This is false, but the following is true:

• Shakespeare's King Richard III contains the line "Now is the winter of our discontent".

This is the first of two lines in the play which together make up the sentence "Now is the winter of our discontent made glorious summer by this sun of York."

Braincricket (talk) 06:49, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

It is not "false" or an "error"; it is simply written in a different style. AS/TQ may be less precise, but it is nonetheless a widely accepted style. It is simply untrue to say that it is "wrong" just because it is different to the style others have adopted.

BS/LQ and AS/TQ are two different styles: both are valid; both are widely used. Only one of the proposed options seeks to mandate one style (which seems "wrong" to many people) and banish the other; the other options seek to allow flexibility so that both styles can be accommodated as appropriate. —sroc (talk) 09:56, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Braincricket, the misleading thing about the quote you provided isn't the punctuation. It's the text itself. The words state that "Now is the winter of our discontent" is a whole line, and it's not. That statement is incorrect no matter how it is punctuated.

• Shakespeare's King Richard III contains the words "Now is the winter of our discontent."/". is true either way. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:39, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

What is "better" in the opinion of a few Wikipedia editors is and should be largely irrelevant to this discussion. By imposing the mandatory use of British style quotation punctuation/logical quotation, MOS has chosen to ignore the predominant punctuation practices of 320 million Americans and 30 million Canadians, representing the largest and third largest national varieties of written English, and over three quarters of the English-speaking world. American and Canadian editors should have the option of editing Wikipedia articles written in American and Canadian English using American style quotation punctuation/traditional quotation that the overwhelming majority of American and Canadian writers use, nearly all American and Canadian style guides support and endorse, and which virtually the entire North American publishing industry uses. While it may have evolved into the majority practice in Britain and several other Commonwealth countries so-called "logical quotation" is not now, and never has been a mainstream punctuation practice in the United States and Canada. As a result, WP:LQ is one of the most-often ignored MOS provisions simply because it is not the natural way in which Americans and Canadians write. MOS relies on mostly voluntary compliance; that happens when MOS tracks the majority practice in the real world. Here, as is often the case with other problematic MOS provisions, we have chosen to impose a minority practice because editors think it is "better" than the majority practice. In the absence of some rationale flexibility on this point which permits Americans and Canadians to write in the manner which they are taught and which they read daily in the overwhelming majority of American and Canadian publications, you may look forward to regularly revisiting this issue again and again, as North American editors continue to question why they are forced to write in a style that is distinctly "foreign" to them in articles that are ostensibly written in their own national variety of English. The prescriptive logic of WP:LQ and its MOS proponents is quite odd indeed, and one can only imagine how they would react if compelled to write using every-day practices that are foreign to them. That, gentlemen, is The Point, and all of this argument about "what is better" is just so much sturm und drang to justify the imposition of a minority practice which some editors prefer. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:45, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

EDIT: I'd also like to point out that Braincricket provided a hypothetical example rather than a real one. This is an example that the writer of an editorial constructed for his own purposes, not something that caused confusion and got noticed. I've been asking if anyone's seen any problems attributable to American punctuation, and the count is still at zero.

Concur with Dirtlawyer. It might be more logical to spell "centre" as "center," but it would be wrong to make all the British articles chuck out correct British spelling. I could write up a hypothetical example in which a fictional person thought that "centre" was pronounced "sen-treh," but I've never seen anyone who wasn't a schoolchild still learning the language actually make that mistake. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:49, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

The best evidence that the punctuation rule is not really about correctness is the rest of the style on quotations ignores such "correctness" issues. For example:

• No indication is used, in the MOS style, to indicate that words have been removed from the beginning of a phrase. If a book says "In the opinion of this author, John was the right choice.", then the MOS would allow us to quote this simply as "John was the right choice.", including the period from the original, but silently omitting the first part of the sentence.
• Similarly, the first letter of a quotation is capitalized in the MOS style even if it was not capitalized in the original, if the quotation starts a sentence here.

There are contexts where every difference from the original is marked: ellipses are used to indicate any removal from the original sentence, and [B]rackets are used to indicate capitalization changes. But Wikipedia does not use such a system. In contexts where care is taken, it is obvious whether the material formed a complete sentence in the original, because an ellipsis would have to be used if the quoted material was not a full sentence. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:00, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Just to point out the point made earlier, North America doesnt make up the majority of the english speaking world at all. Countries where it is the main language, sure; but theres more english speakers in the EU and India alone then there are in Nth America. And barring those with US influenced educations, they likely also use LQ to a large extent aswell. Not that argumentum ad populum is a particularly powerful argument by most standards anyway. -- Nbound (talk) 13:02, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

You are slicing the numbers to suit your argument and thereby deprecate the overwhelming majority practice of 320 million Americans and 30 million Canadians. Are you aware, Nbound, that more Filipinos speak English than the entire population of the UK? Do you think Filipinos speak a British-based dialect and use British-based punctuation? Did you know that the depth of English usage in the Philippines as the lingua franca is far deeper than it is in India? Are you really going to make an argument for what is the majority quotation punctuation practice based on the number of Frenchmen and Germans who speak English as a second or third language? Do they publish style guides for English written by Frenchmen and Germans as a second or third language? Has it occurred to you that outside of Europe, where current majority practices in British English predominate, that traditional quotation punctuation may still be prevalent in many of the backwaters of the former Empire? The current MOS imposition of a foreign punctuation practice upon the largest and third largest clusters of native speakers of English is presumptuous in the extreme, especially when MOS proponents of BS/LQ continue to argue that quotation punctuation is "mixed" in Britain, Australia and elsewhere. So which is it? Is practice mixed in the UK and Australia, or is BS/LQ the predominant practice there? In either event, how does that justify imposing mandatory use BS/LQ in articles written in American and Canadian English, when BS/LQ is a distinctly minority punctuation practice, outside the well-defined mainstream in the United States and Canada?

Nbound, MOS works best when it tracks majority practices in the real world, and we may rely on the voluntary compliance of educated editors who know and understand those majority practices. When MOS adopts a minority practice, in the face of an established majority practice, voluntary compliance drops, and controversy inevitably ensues. There is nothing "logical" about that. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:37, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

It might be best if we kept this part of the thread about evidence for or against differences in performance between these two systems in real-world or Wikipedia situations? Nbound has a point about how lots of people outside North America speak English, and if we were replacing ENGVAR with some kind of Wikipedia-tailored fusion variety of English, it might be a relevant one, but that's not the issue at hand. Right now, Wikipedia says it's all right to write articles that are just in American English or just in Canadian English or just in Irish English, and we're talking about the role of a British punctuation rule in those articles.

An argument has made that the British rule prevents misquotations and ambiguity, but no one has ever actually seen this happen, so it might be a myth. Has anyone ever seen a misquotation caused by American English punctuation? Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:12, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

• Pace Darkfrog, it is a line -- in fact it's the first line of the play. A sentence is what it isn't. It's certainly a red herring, though. The article contains the statements: "as experts, we linguists deserve certain courtesies, like high rates of pay, and blind trust in our competence on the part of John Q. Public", "I will also be publishing the home addresses of a number of top copy-editors to be used in postcard intimidation work" and "A certain amount of entertaining has also proved necessary in the pursuit of further fund-raising objectives [for the Campaign for Typographical Freedom], and to this end the poolside facilities at my residence have been improved (by the addition of a pool)." Perhaps not completely serious? --Stfg (talk) 14:06, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh it's definitely an editorial rather than a study.

Well then if it is a whole line, then I don't see what it is about the example that is supposed to be misleading. The character's meaning? Again, the problem is that the rest of words in the sentence have been left out, which is the case with both punctuation practices.

Look at it this way, if the original text was "Chaz Bono doesn't consider himself a man but rather an amazing man," then the quotation "Chaz Bono doesn't consider himself a man" would be misleading no matter where the period was placed. (Chaz Bono is a famous raised-female trans man.) We wouldn't allow that sort of thing on Wikipedia no matter what. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:12, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh for heaven's sake, Darkfrog, I know already! Please read the rest of it -- it's barely even an editorial, it's a spoof! And please stop badgering me. I supported option B already. --Stfg (talk) 14:22, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

And please stop treating us as if we needed every little thing explaining to us. We all know what quotation out of context is already. --Stfg (talk) 15:43, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

1. I did read the whole thing, actually, or at least the seven or so pages in the link. 2. I'm not clear on how responding to someone else's post in an analytical manner counts as badgering you. 3. Quotation out of context was the issue at hand in the example that Braincricket provided. 4. That thing's a spoof, like Modest Proposal? The author sounds like he's serious. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:14, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

2. Responding to one post isn't badgering; you've directly and didactically replied to more than 50% of my posts on this page, and that is. 3. My point is: do you think we can't see it? 4. You think the three things I quoted are serious? And there's loads more of such stuff there. --Stfg (talk) 18:59, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

That's not badgering you, Stfg. That's answering you. You know what? Okay. I'm sorry if I've made you feel overwhelmed, but I flatter myself to think that people other than you might be reading what I post, hence the easy-to-absorb Chaz Bono example.

And yes, the author in Braincricket's link looks like he actually means what he says. Although there's a joke here and there, the author does seem to be advocating a campaign to replace American practice with British/L. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:19, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Following from CBM's comment above, I would like to note this from WP:MOS#Typographic conformity:

A quotation is not a facsimile, and in most cases it is not desirable to duplicate the original formatting. Formatting and other purely typographical elements of quoted text should be adapted to English Wikipedia's conventions without comment; this practice is universal among publishers.

Additionally, many editors familiar with AS/TQ style and unaware of MOS guidelines on this point likely already quote sources in this way, i.e., by including commas and full stops within the closing quotation marks even when they do not appear in the original. Thus, it should never be assumed that every quote already on Wikipedia faithfully reproduces the punctuation of the original without checking the source. —sroc (talk) 14:20, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Here is an sentence showing ambiguity with "typographic quotation".

• In the United States, the abbreviation of "Mister" is "Mr.," but in the United Kingdom, the abbreviation of "Mister" is "Mr."

Here is an sentence showing unambiguity with "logical quotation".

• In the United States, the abbreviation of "Mister" is "Mr.", but in the United Kingdom, the abbreviation of "Mister" is "Mr".

—Wavelength (talk) 22:21, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Wavelength, American punctuation specifically makes exceptions for things that involve strings of nonalphanumeric characters. Again, though, these are hypothetical. You composed them for this conversation. Like most of the examples shown here, it amounts to "Well this would cause a problem. Doesn't it look like it would cause a problem?" Have you seen anything that wouldn't be discussed in the subjunctive mood? Do you have any "This did cause a problem"? Because, so far, regardless of whether American style would cause a problem, no one's shown that it actually does.

I'll be clearer. Has anyone seen an error in subsequent editing crop up in a Wikipedia article? Has anyone read a news article that used American punctuation and then saw in the comments section that many of the readers had misinterpreted the author's meaning? Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:30, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

A hypothetical example is as valid as one drawn from historical reality. A decision made in advance about a possibly unprecedented case can be more efficient than a decision postponed until after a possible breach has been committed.

—Wavelength (talk) 23:25, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

In Wavelength's examples, the sentences are poorly structured as they demand re-reading and an assumption of the precise style being adopted in order to understand what is meant. (When I first read it, I thought both said the same thing.) The sentence should be recast to say what you mean:

• In the United States, the abbreviation of "Mister" is "Mr." (including the period), but in the United Kingdom, the abbreviation is "Mr" (without the period).
• The abbreviation of "Mister" is punctuated with a period ("Mr.") in the United States but without the period ("Mr") in the United Kingdom.

That makes it much clearer what precisely is meant in the rare case that it matters. We should not assume that readers will know that Wikipedia uses a particular house style across the board and that such details make a difference to the interpretation. —sroc (talk) 23:28, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

We should not assume that any article below A or FA status (and not necessarily even then) is going to structure that sentence the optimum way, even moreso nationally focussed articles. With one style, you either know it, or you dont, and it doesnt take much to figure it out. Its not like Americans cant actually read LQ, and the main argument just seems to be that its "wrong". (or "wrong." :P) If we mix up LQ and TQ, then it becomes more confusing for the average reader, not less, there is no longer a singular style across the encyclopedia (theoretically), and a reader must guess which style is being used, sure that's fine in US articles, but in the backwaters of US influence it may not necessarily be so easy. In cases where the usage is more mixed than the majority LQ usage across the commonwealth, it may lead to edit wars and people discussing for years on end what should be correct (you may scoff at that, but look at the other minor issues that have caused edit wars and years long discussion - including, this one :P). We already have a clear system, it works, everyone can read it, (though some might not like it), why change? What benefit does allowing TQ give the encylopedia? Theres a reason other encyclopedias and other institutions stick to a single style, its professional, and the meaning can be discerned appropriately in each case. -- Nbound (talk) 23:52, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

The benefit of not being wrong, sloppy, alienating and biased, Nbound. It's the same benefit that we get from having an MoS at all. In addition, removing a rule that is based on the whims of contributors to this talk page and replacing it with one based on sources would give the whole MoS more credibility.

Also, as I've pointed out before, lots of featured articles use American style, even when they appear on the front page. I tracked them for a whole year a while back. Do you want links? Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:57, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Wavelength, while hypothetical examples have their place, no they are not as valid as real-world, saw-it-happen examples. For one thing, as Sroc has pointed out, many users would spot problems and avoid them even if American punctuation were permitted.

For another, hypotheses are by definition educated guesses. Observed results are not. No matter how logical or probable the hypothesis seems, if it contradicts the observed results, then it's wrong.

For another, the fact that the entire case against American punctuation is hypothetical really should say something. There is so much American punctuation out there and no one has spotted a real-life problem? Not even one? Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:54, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

There's really no need for a "case against American punctuation". WP uses LQ because it's more logical and because we want a uniform style. American style is OK, too, but is not what WP uses. Dicklyon (talk) 00:01, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

If you are quoting a published text, and you use LQ, you are copying the punctuation the publisher has added according to that publisher's house style. So you either copy another publisher's style, or you use your own style. Logic has nothing to do with it. If you are quoting a spoken text, you add your own punctuation according to where you think the pauses were intended, and you may not get it right. The only question that matters is which style is easier for Wikipedians. Clearly AS is easier, because with AS you can copy edit an article without knowing what the publisher's house style was – or where the speaker intended to place her pauses – and that's important for us because we often don't have access to the sources. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:48, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Darkfrog24 and sroc, if a hypothetical example can be recast to avoid the issue, then a non-hypothetical example can likewise be recast to avoid the issue. In that case, what is the purpose of inviting ambiguous or erroneous examples?

—Wavelength (talk) 00:04, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. I didn't invite examples, but I agree that if there are any actual (non-hypothetical) cases where confusion may arise from ambiguity that actually matters, it is the fault of poorly-written prose, not the choice of style. If you find such an instance in an article (whatever its status), the answer is to re-write the prose, not to force a style that is preferred in some regions and rejected in others (which goes against the principles of WP:ENGVAR). —sroc (talk) 00:39, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

1. The hypothetical examples are not being recast to avoid the issue. Their existing flaws are being pointed out. 2. Can non-hypothetical problems be recast? If no one finds one, we'll never know. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:33, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

In all the reams of discussion on this topic, no-one has yet come up with a real example where TQ/AS rather than LQ/BS leads to significant ambiguity that cannot be removed by careful writing. It seems reasonable to conclude that there are no such examples. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:50, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Every sentence that ends in a TQ/AS quotation is ambiguous. I don't have any examples from Wikipedia because I assume that all sentences in which closing punctuation is included within the quotation marks are using LQ. If LQ wasn't mandated, I would have no way of knowing whether such sentences were TQ/AS or LQ, and thus no way of knowing whether the punctuation was included in the original quotation or not. Kaldari (talk) 02:20, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Kaldari, you don't have that now. First, WP:LQ has such low compliance on Wikipedia that there's no way to tell whether the previous editor knew what they were doing, and second, to know whether there was a period or comma after the last alphanumeric character, you must look at the original, in American style because the period or comma is placed inside regardless and in British because sense placement usually requires that it be omitted. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:33, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Every quoted sentence that begins with a proper noun is similarly ambiguous, because there is no way to tell if the quote was an entire sentence in the original, or just the end of one. But, somehow, we manage to get by with that ambiguity... the parallel ambiguity at the end of the sentence is no worse. If it matters that words were omitted, an ellipsis is used - otherwise, by definition, it doesn't matter. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:36, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Precisely. Actually it's worse than that at the beginning of a sentence, because Wikipedia doesn't allow the use of [] to mark a change of capitalization, so every quoted portion that begins with a capital letter is ambiguous, e.g. "In the long run we're all dead" was Keynes' famous statement. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:41, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Compliance with WP:LQ

It has been asserted above that WP:LQ has low compliance on WP. So I tried the random article test. I had to go through more than 20 random articles before I found one with one quote in AS/TQ (so I fixed it: Satin Sheets (song), which had a comma inside the song name "Please Sing Satin Sheets for Me,"). Along the way, I found a lot with LQ due to citation templates, and 3 with LQ in running text, and lots where there was no punctuation placement that would cause one style or the other to be in evidence. This seems to be at odds with the observation that AS/TQ is common in WP. I don't think it is. Has anyone else tried to survey the usage? Dicklyon (talk) 01:01, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

In 14 more random tries, I found 2 more with LQ before this one with AS/TQ: Love Zone. So I fixed it. The bigger compliance issue along the way is the number of articles using typographer's curly quotes instead of the straight ASCII quotes that the MOS recommends. Dicklyon (talk) 01:08, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't have any stats on this. My point was that we shouldn't assume: (1) that all editors are aware of WP:LQ having been adopted and apply it consistently; (2) that all readers are aware of WP:LQ having been adopted and expect it to be applied consistently; (3) therefore, that readers will expect that the punctuation style used in particular case is definitive in an otherwise ambiguous text. —sroc (talk) 01:29, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Of course we don't assume that. Any wikignome who works on MOS compliance knows that most editors (and by extension, readers) are completely oblivious to style issues. I just fixed Abdul Rahman Arif, which had a particularly comical mix of quote styles, including one LQ and one AS/TQ copied verbatim from a source that used AS/TQ, and with the quotation marks then partially mangled. The fact that LQ predominates even though most editors are oblivious does fit with the observation that this is how people write these days. Dicklyon (talk) 01:35, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

That's how people who don't know how to write write these days, but is that what we want Wikipedia to look like? Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:31, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I tracked every featured article from April 2011 to April 2012.

• Articles that used only American punctuation: 13
• Articles that used mostly American punctuation: 10
• Articles that used only British punctuation: 110
• Articles that used mostly British punctuation: 94
• Articles that were a mix of both styles: 54
• Articles that used neither: 23
• Other: 30

So yes, there is less American punctuation than British among featured articles on Wikipedia, but this rule has only about 60% compliance, and 16% is too much sloppiness.

Links and further details available upon request. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:29, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Featured articles are not good examples, because there are people who use LQ for FAs because they believe the MoS mandates it, and if they don't, some reviewers will change the punctuation during the review. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:31, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't know what "mostly" means compared to "mix", but I'll count those with "only" for now. Then it's 6.8% being noncompliant by being only or mostly AS/TQ, and 16% being noncompliance by being sloppy "mix". That leaves about 77% compliance. That's really not bad, and certainly the proposed change would not help, except by saying that those 6.8 are OK after all. Dicklyon (talk) 16:47, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

For "inconsistent" I was using "feels like at least one third one style and no more than two thirds the other." The 16% refers to these articles alone, which would be considered incorrect under either the current WP:LQ or any of the proposed improvements.

(Mostly British + Completely British) / Total number of articles logged ≈ 60%, not 77%. If we add in the twenty-three articles that did not use (or need) either American or British punctuation, then it comes up to 68%

The proposed change would help because it would allow articles written using incorrect English to be written in correct English. British punctuation is not correct in American English articles. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:36, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

The ones that did not use or need either style are obviously compliant. I don't understand "it would allow articles written using incorrect English to be written in correct English." Using LQ is never incorrect in the context of a style that specifies using LQ. LQ is not incorrect in "American English articles" if there even is such a thing. All the articles we are talking about are English Wikipedia articles, not American English articles. Adding such a distinction would be a bad idea, even though we do allow and recognize that some variations are distinguished per WP:ENGVAR ("vocabulary, spelling, date formatting and occasionally grammar"). There's no need to declare articles to be one national variety or another, typically, and no need to have different style recommendations for different national varieties of English, or to allow different styles randomly as many are supporting here. Dicklyon (talk) 23:21, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Leaving commas outside the quotation marks is incorrect in American English. This is borne out in the long list of sources cited in the subsection above. I don't understand why you think our own preferences are more important than that. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:08, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I think Darkfrog24's point (which I agree with) is that if an article on an American topic is written in accordance with American English per WP:ENGVAR then it is incongruous to require British style punctuation to be used per WP:LQ, as the article will not really conform with American style guides or British style guides and will essentially be a hodge podge. This over-simplifies the nature of "American" and "British" styles, but the principle is easy to understand: if we allow variation in spelling to suit different regional varieties of English, we should do the same for punctuation style. —sroc (talk) 01:19, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

The only relevant statistical data would be for articles which should clearly be using American or Canadian English. These are the articles to which the RfC primarily applies.
Here are some results I got, for what they are worth. I took one city from each of the 22 starting letters at Category:Cities in New York and looked for cases where TQ/AS would require a change in the order of a closing quote mark and a comma or full stop. I ignored citations, since these may be produced by templates.

• 6 – no relevant cases of closing quotes + punctuation
• 3 – all relevant cases conform to TQ/AS
• 5 – all relevant cases acceptable in LQ/BS
• 8 – mixed or erroneous relevant cases (i.e. some would need changing for TQ/AS, some would need changing for LQ/BS, or there are clearly erroneous uses of " + punctuation in either style)

A count of 5/16 doesn't suggest widespread adherence to the existing style. Half of the articles were mixed or otherwise in error.
Anyone with time might like to add to this by looking at other article sets which should clearly be in American English. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:44, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Good idea, Peter coxhead. I've scanned one article from each category in Category:Cities in Canada by province or territory on the same basis and found:

• 2 – no cases of closing quotes with terminating punctuation (comma or period) [34][35]
• 1 – conforms to TQ/AS [36]

• 1 – conforms to TQ/AS, but one instance includes terminating punctuation which might be in source which would also conform to LQ/BS [37]

• 3 – conform to LQ/BS [38][39][40]

• 3 – conform to LQ/BS generally, but include instances which may follow TQ/AS where it is unclear whether terminating punctuation was in the source [41][42][43]

• 3 – mixed or erroneous uses [44][45][46]

Note that there are some cases where it is impossible to tell whether the terminating punctuation is in the original, and therefore whether the style followed is LQ/BS (i.e., assuming the punctuation was in the original) or TQ/AS. I have intended these cases and listed them below the relevant category based on the style used throughout the rest of the article in each case. I have also included links to the articles checked for verification.

It should be noted that there will necessarily be a bias towards LQ/BS because that is the mandated style and therefore instances that we originally written in TQ/AS may have been changed to conform or editors who would otherwise ordinarily use TQ/AS might have used LQ/BS to conform in the first instance. Nonetheless, notwithstanding the small sample size, it is clear that LQ/BS is not universal. —sroc (talk) 11:11, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually there's a substantial bias favouring LQ/BS in determining the style of the article, for the following reasons:

• Not fully following TQ/AS requires just one example of a closing quote mark followed by a comma/full stop, since this is always wrong.
• Many sequences of comma/full stop followed by a closing quote mark are correct in LQ/BS, so not fully following it can only be determined by finding such a sequence that is clearly wrong in this style. The easiest to spot are cases where the quote marks are used as Scare quotes or for the Use–mention distinction – here a comma or full stop inside the quote marks is almost always wrong in LQ/BS. Since many articles don't ever use quote marks for this purpose, you often can't be sure whether LQ/BS is being followed correctly without checking the source.

I believe that compliance is lower than the statistical data suggests.

What is certain, as SlimVirgin has noted above, is that copy-editing to TQ/AS is easy, whereas copy-editing to LQ/BS sometimes needs access to the source, which may not be easily available. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:36, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

• Dicklyon, you walk on the wrong articles;)
  #You always can edit.
  #You say it's "American"? I don't think so — among my friends are Americans who puntuate as it should be. Overall, the issue of the "American punctuation" is sort of a weird one: lots of decades have gone since typographic tools weren't able to maintain ". & ",, etc. It's high time all US's obamas etc. did come around with some understanding.
  Who "maintains" the language there at all? I don't know... If there are some academics responsible — what a heck are they thinking? Lincoln Josh (talk) 12:01, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

  Josh, I don't know how to interpret your comments. It's not me that refers to AS/TQ as "American". Perhaps you meant to address someone else. Dicklyon (talk) 16:53, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

• Sorry, it was just too many letters - and I piled the stuff up:) (I agree that's not American — that's archaic;) Lincoln Josh (talk) 15:22, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Peter coxhead makes a good point about the bias in the results. I have rephrased some of the explanations of the results on my survey of Canadian articles. The sample size is too small to draw concrete conclusions, but I think the significant results are:

• 2 articles clearly conform to TQ/AS
• 3 articles clearly conform to LQ/BS
• 6 articles have mixed uses, erroneous uses, or contain uses where it is impossible to tell which style was used
• 2 articles contained no relevant uses

This supports the proposition that there is a mixed bag and LQ/BS is far from universal, despite being required by MOS. —sroc (talk) 12:37, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

The other point is that for every article that uniformly complies with LQ/BS, there are at least as many examples where there uses of TQ/AS (often in the same article) or where it impossible to confirm which style is being used. This tells us, in spite of the aims of LQ/BS to preserve the integrity of the quoted text, there is currently no guarantee that the quoted text accurately reflects the source: it is too unreliable, so it is not really serving its stated aim as it is. —sroc (talk) 12:43, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it's sad that it's not perfect yet. Even lofty goals embedded in policy, like WP:V and WP:RS are a long way from compliance, so people cannot count on knowing the truth from what they read in WP. But we can keep trying. Preserving the integrity of quotes is but one tiny part... Dicklyon (talk) 17:23, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Or perhaps the fact that compliance is so low, in combination with all the other evidence presented in this thread, should be treated as yet another clue that this WP:LQ is not a good rule. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:39, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I think your assertion that compliance is low has been refuted. It's also not very relevant to this issue, since the main noncompliance is in using mixed styles. Dicklyon (talk) 23:21, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Well then you must not think that 60% among what are supposed to be Wikipedia's most carefully written articles is low. I do. The problems that have been raised are that there are sooooo many articles that would have to be changed from B/L to A, that there's sooooo much certainty enjoyed by the use of B/L on Wikipedia, which is soooo consistent. Those things have been shown not to be the case.

You thought it was relevant when you started the thread. Darkfrog24 (talk) 05:01, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Your numbers showed about a 77% compliance, and the noncompliance was mostly not because articles were written in AS/TQ, but because they were mixes. That latter is the reason I concluded that the current proposal would have only a minor effect (6%) on compliance, and hence my statement, "It's also not very relevant to this issue, since the main noncompliance is in using mixed styles." My own random-article checks are in the same ballpark; you'd get only about 5% more compliance by declaring AS/TQ to be compliant; most articles just aren't written that way, even though lots of style guides prescribe it. Dicklyon (talk) 05:48, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

1. Check your math. (British + mostly British + none apply)/total ≈68%, not 77%. 2. The issue was not whether declaring American punctuation valid would fix a compliance problem. The issue was whether WP:LQ is an established, stable rule that should therefore be left in place. It's not. It's often ignored even by featured article crews, and we can infer that they don't know or care about it. Because Wikipedia is performing just fine without relatively low compliance to WP:LQ, we can say that WP:LQ does not contribute to Wikipedia's performance. Darkfrog24 (talk) 06:16, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I am revising the heading of this subsection from Compliance to Compliance with WP:LQ, in harmony with WP:TPOC, point 13 (Section headings). The new subheading is more informative in tables of contents and in internal links and in watchlists. Please see Microcontent: How to Write Headlines, Page Titles, and Subject Lines.

—Wavelength (talk) 14:53, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Punctuation and footnotes

With logical punctuation, the MOS (erroneously in my view -- I think the MOS should be silent on this issue and leave it to CITE) encourages the placement of footnotes after punctuation. If this change goes through and typographical quotation is encouraged will that mean after the punctuation but before the quote mark? -- PBS (talk) 18:17, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I think after the quote mark, just as it does when quote follows period or comma under LQ. Put another way, quote marks are not among the exceptions listed at MOS:REFPUNC. --Stfg (talk) 18:24, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

PBS, in my fairly varied experience, I am unaware of any punctuation/footnoting system where the superscript footnote or endnote character is placed inside the concluding punctuation and/or quote marks. My reaction is that the superscript footnote/endnote character should always be placed outside (following) the concluding punctuation and/or quote marks. I am willing to be educated if there exists some minority system that supports contrary usage. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:52, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I concur. Footnote symbol are never included inside quotation marks according to any style guide I've ever seen. The placement of commas and full stops in the footnote itself is a different matter which should follow whatever style is used throughout the article (although this may take some working out in templates, as noted above). —sroc (talk) 23:37, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Quotation marks are punctuation.—Wavelength (talk) 03:07, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

On allowing two styles

When I come to an article that uses American spelling (unless there is a good reason it shouldn't) I conform spelling "metre" as "meter", "colour" as "color", etc. When I come to an article that puts months before days (again, unless it shouldn't) I again follow suit. If we allowed TQ as well as LQ, I would do the same, but how would I know? You can't always tell. Proponents of TQ say that the inclusion of full stops and commas within the inverted commas is not so great a problem because we know that this is just a part of the process. Okay, if you know that's what's going on, some of the confusion is cleared up (some not all), but the problem is that you mightn't know. If both styles are allowed, how could a reader or editor know which is being used where? Sure, this problem may be there anyway (TQ sometimes slips through in spite of the guidelines) but at least MOS lets us fix it (if we can). If, on the other hand, TQ and LQ were both okay by MOS, we'll end up with a bizarre mix which no one can fix. Jimp 04:17, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Simple. If the article is written in American English, place the periods and commas inside the quotation marks. The end.

If the article is in British English and must be converted from American punctuation to British punctuation, then place according to sense. When necessary, consult the source. That's what I do when editing British articles, and I have never found it to be a big deal. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:15, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

You don't always know whether an article is in American English. Also what if the article is in Canadian English? Another point is whether or not the choice of style is to be tied to dialect. Jimp 04:25, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Once again, an MOS proponent of mandatory BS/LQ advances a red herring -- yet another purportedly insurmountable obstacle -- to recognizing and permitting the predominant style of quotation punctuation in the United States and Canada. No, there is no real hurdle to recognizing and permitting two different styles of quotation punctuation, only an imagined parade of horribles that has little if any basis in reality. It will be no more difficult to recognize, permit and administer two different quotation punctuation styles than there is to recognizing, permitting and administering two different spelling standards, two different date formats, or multiple citation formats. Anyone who is familiar with our dual system of date formats knows that we have DMY and MDY date format templates that designate the appropriate date format for any given article, and a similar template could easily be implemented regarding quotation punctuation styles.

As for knowing whether an article is written in American or Canadian English, in most instances that should be obvious based on the subject. Should an article on Barack Obama, George Washington, the Cincinnati Reds, North Carolina, Chicago, the National Football League, the Florida Supreme Court, NASA, or Ernest Hemingway be written in British English? Should articles on Toronto, John Macdonald, Saskatchewan, the Hamilton Tiger-Cats, the Canadian Football League, or the University of Alberta be written in Australian English? In most cases the answer is obvious; in the non-obvious cases, Wikipedia editors are intelligent enough to sort it out with logic and/or compromise.

Got any more red herring filets in your tin? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:36, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

If the article is not already clearly written in a specific variety of English or if the MoS does not require linking punctuation to spelling then 1. pick one and 2. go. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:58, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

For many subjects the appropriate dialect is clear, of course, and for many it's not. Should an article on birds, rocks, computers, the Moon, electrons, paint, ears, snow or light emitting diodes be written in South African English? So, I pick one style or other and go. I could leave an editorial note about it (like with the date format templates) but chances are most won't (like the date format templates) and if I don't, who's to know what style I'd chosen? I often come across articles with a mix of dmy and ymd, of American and the-rest-of-us spelling or of "US" and "U.S." (I really do, I'm not imagining it); it's easy to recognise and tidy up. It's not always easy to distinguish LQ from TQ (without the actual source it can be impossible). It's easy to change spelling styles or date formats. Converting from TQ to LQ isn't always easy (I'm not imagining this either). A conversion from TQ to LQ can (without the source) be impossible because TQ involves a loss of information. So we'd have to expect many articles to end up with a mixture of styles. Some articles might be lucky enough to escape this fate and end up with one style or other. How is the reader to know which? Would your suggested templates be visible to readers (unlike their date format or engvar counterparts)? Jimp 08:21, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

If you can't tell, then it doesn't matter. The "loss of information" is irrelevant if you can't tell whether a quote was formatted in TQ or LQ to begin with. If in doubt, pick either format. If inconsistency develops within an article, or consensus changes as to which style should be adopted within an article, then they can be edited later. Ideally, the quotes will be supported by reference that can be checked to confirm whether the terminating punctuation was in the original if necessary to conform with LQ (this is not a problem for conforming with TQ). But really, given the inconsistencies which are already apparent, it is a fallacy to assume that all quotations currently are in LQ so this is not really the big deal that you're making it out to be — nor, more importantly, is this a good reason to disallow a style which is perfectly acceptable as standard in prominent varieties of English, including but not limited to American English. —sroc (talk) 08:43, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I do sympathize with Jimp's point about the difficulty of knowing which style(s) should be in use in an article, although I don't think this should influence whether or not TQ/BS should be mandatory or one of two allowed styles since it's a problem already. I think that separately we should consider how to make the styles in use in articles clearer to editors. I would, for example, suggest that the MOS should recommend that article creators should always add the appropriate language variant templates. These could be rationalized somewhat so that they incorporate and show mandatory and optional styles, setting the defaults if not over-ridden (e.g. dmy for British English, TQ/AS for US English). Peter coxhead (talk) 09:07, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

• I strongly approve of the idea of allowing logical punctuation everywhere. I say this coming from the U.S. and being taught another way. Because it's just better. I'm sick and tired of having every innovation in the language (like whether you're supposed to use one space or two after a period, or whether "travelled" is proper) being handed down by some faceless Microsoft bureaucrat who thinks he has a God-given monopoly right to rule the world, or partitioned according to some preposterous notion of the relative "goodness" of English countries (i.e. to respect Canadian English, not Indian English, Nigerian English). Let's get in here and seize a little of the power ourselves, shall we? And I can't think of a better place to start than to allow logical punctuation everywhere in the hope it might catch on. Wnt (talk) 02:00, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

But that's the problem. This isn't about allowing British/L style everywhere. It's already allowed throughout Wikipedia. It's about whether it should required everywhere. The current rule punishes people who want to use American style in contexts in which it is correct. In this case, a few contributors to the MoS talk page are the faceless bureaucrats who are imposing their own pet peeves on the rest of the system.

You say that British style is "just better." Can you show us any case in which it delivers a non-hypothetical, non-imaginary benefit? You're entitled to your personal preferences, of course, but can you show us why other people should have to follow them in the form of rules? Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:11, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, I can certainly see the merits of saying it is "beneath regulatory concern ." ;) Wnt (talk) 09:51, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

That's more or less what the admin said when I got brought up on AN/I for using American punctuation. It still happened, though. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:35, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Fidelity to the source as an argument for Option A

Surveying the comments of those in favour of Option A, two reasons stand out: a desire for consistency, and support for fidelity to the source (i.e. the "logical" part of LQ). I'd like to address the second of these here.

In general I'm very much in favour of fidelity to the source. I would regard this as a significant argument in favour of Option A if it were not for the fact that many other parts of the MOS ignore fidelity. For example, WP:MOS#Typographic conformity allows a range of typographical modifications to be made to the source, some of which are clearly harmless, others less so:

• Altering capitalization can disguise the position of the quoted material in a sentence. Those who strongly favour fidelity to the source should support the use of brackets here, e.g. "[i]n general". The position of the full stop shows that "In general" did not terminate the original sentence; the use of [] shows that it started the original sentence. Why favour one rather than the other?
• Silently expanding abbreviations may introduce errors, and avoids the need to attribute the expansion if this is at all questionable. Best practice to preserve fidelity is to use brackets: "I support LQ [logical quotation]."

For similar reasons of fidelity to the source, I favour retaining the capital letters in the English name of a species, if this is the style of the source, and the choice of hyphen or en-dash in the name of a comet, as per the style of the source, yet the MOS explicitly supports over-riding the source.

So a supposed concern for fidelity to the source in relation to TQ/AS strikes me as highly selective, if not downright hypocritical. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:38, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Not necessarily hypocritical. You seem to ignore that when there is a guideline that overrides fidelity to source, the latter is merely taking lower precedence, not being defined as an objective to avoid. Without a guideline that overrides it (which is usually aimed at style consistency), fidelity to source remains a valid argument. Here, the argument of style consistency and fidelity are not in opposition, and fidelity is being used to argue against the introduction of a competing guideline that also seeks to introduce reduced style consistency. — Quondum 22:35, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

1. We already have no style consistency.

2. No one has been able to show that American punctuation causes infidelity to the source, confusion, subsequent misquotation or any other non-hypothetical problem. But if you've seen one go ahead and say; it would be relevant.

3. Wikipedia has already embraced ENGVAR, showing that respecting the diversity of English is more important than imposing an artificial (and in the case of WP:LQ, nonexistent) consistency that requires incorrect punctuation in AmE and CanE articles. That's why we don't write "harbor" or "center" in articles about London and then claim that they're in proper British English; they wouldn't be. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:23, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

@Quondum: Your comments illustrate my point about the fidelity argument. Fidelity is, for you, secondary to consistency between Wikipedia articles: given that Option A promotes inter-article consistency, then it's nice that it also (to a limited degree in my view) promotes fidelity. But fidelity isn't the real argument: the real argument is inter-article consistency.

I have to confess that I'm baffled that anyone could put forward inter-article consistency as a serious argument for a style choice in Wikipedia, which is notable for its lack of such consistency: different ENGVAR styles, different citation styles, etc. What we can have is intra-article consistency, where Options B or C would help by ensuring that the punctuation style of articles written in American English isn't obviously "wrong" to American readers.

In short, it seems to me that the only real issue in this debate is between trying to maintain a tiny bit of inter-article consistency or trying to maintain intra-article consistency. ("Trying" in both cases, because surveys seem to show that compliance is low, and we know that many new US editors will naturally use TQ/AS and will be surprised and annoyed to find that they aren't supposed to.) Peter coxhead (talk) 07:13, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

@Peter: No, I would like to see some consistent style on WP overall wherever possible, which I guess you might call inter-article consistency (I would have called it pan-article consistency, but uniform choice of style does even better). We already have fairly extensive guidelines aimed at this (what, after all, is WP:MOS for?). I view WP:ENGVAR to some extent as an accommodation for a vocal minority of editors, and to some extent as softening the guidelines in a sensible way. To argue that style anarchy is the order of the day on WP is nonsense; to use a claim of such anarchy dominating as an argument against consistency guidelines is nonsensical. You might as well suggest that articles on Russia on en.wikipedia.org be written in Russian in analogy with Wikipedia:ENGVAR#National_varieties_of_English. In short: WP is a cosmopolitan zone, not an aggregation of internally cohesive traditionalist groups, each to have their own allocated area of WP. — Quondum 18:31, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Quondom, if we ever did replace ENGVAR with a single variety of English, then you'd be absolutely right to insist on only one punctuation style. However, right now, Wikipedia allows multiple varieties and it would be far better to implement those varieties correctly than to impose a punctuation style considered correct on an article in which it would be incorrect. Worse still to treat people's personal preferences as more important than the sources.

Also, easy on the loose arguments. American is unquestionably a major variety of English widely used and written by native speakers. Russian English is not. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:58, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Who said anything about Russian English? Not I. — Quondum 21:36, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Point taken, but similar arguments have been made in the past about Indian English. Still, it is not right for the MoS to go so far as to require incorrect English. It's like requiring British English articles to leave the u out of "harbour." For as long as Wikipedia claims to treat everyone equally, it should actually do it. No one has been able to show that using American English punctuation, which is already widespread on Wikipedia, has ever caused even one problem. Until someone can, arguments about a supposed lack of fidelity shouldn't trump actual, citeable sources on what is and isn't correct. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:23, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

The MoS provides a guideline that works pretty well, which is a good start. And because punctuation is comparatively minor (I expect most people are not even aware of the variations or rules), the fidelity argument is weak. I feel that it can be beneficial to those attuned to it, but it is only a supportive point. I don't see the need to try to make individual articles consistent in all respects for the readership of some specific variety of English, even if such a thing existed. If one relinquishes the idea of regional/varietal consistency, then arguments such as fidelity merely add a little to one side of the argument. ENGVAR actually recommends phrasing that could fit into all varieties where possible, i.e. uniformity of style unless this is too difficult to achieve. Having a digital decision between alternative permissible styles is not necessarily the best route, when the alternative is a more uniform guideline with the simplicity that brings. There is nothing wrong with a "Wikipedia English". — Quondum 01:35, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Since so many people here have argued that British English permits both styles, then the commonality argument supports using American style exclusively, not British style exclusively.

Yes, there is something wrong with a made-up "Wikipedia English" based on the personal preferences of a few editors and imposed on the rest of the encyclopedia at the expense of correct usage. 1. It makes Wikipedia look sloppy and so undermines confidence in its content. 2. It's really a rotten, schoolyard-bossy thing to do to people. 3. Why not decide that the word "freight" doesn't need the g? It would be logical, but it would be wrong.

The fact that Wikipedia is so influential makes it even more problematic. It's one thing for Wikipedia to reflect even up-to-the-minute state of the English language, but quite another for people to use Wikipedia to push their own vision of what English isn't but should be. If British style ever becomes standard throughout the English-speaking world, we can just change the MoS then, but right now, it's wrong in American English. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:53, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

WP:ENGVAR supports a contrived form of English, made especially for Wikipedia. It makes Wikipedia appear to be inconsistent.

—Wavelength (talk) 02:30, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Contrived, yes, but I see nothing wrong with that. It is probably far closer to what you might think of as "correct American English" than the array of dialects that the majority of Americans speak. Let's try to avoid elitism on WP. — Quondum 03:41, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

ENGVAR does not make Wikipedia appear inconsistent; it makes Wikipedia actually inconsistent. However, it is WP:LQ and not ENGVAR that supports a contrived form of English. ENGVAR supports the idea that more than one variety of English is acceptable and that the unit of consistency should be the article and not the whole encyclopedia. Being correct is more important than being consistent. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:24, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually, WP:ENGVAR doesn't "support[] a contrived form of English"; it supports many varieties of English. The alternatives are to force one form of English (probably US English, let's face it) or to fork off into different versions for each variant which would no doubt make maintaining each version exponentially more difficult. —sroc (talk) 09:29, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

@Quondum Have you ever spent a serious amount of time editing a Wikipedia article in an ENGVAR other than your own? I can only assume that you haven't from your apparent belief that Wikipedia is a "cosmopolitan zone". It's not. It's an amalgam of articles of which the best are well-written in a style appropriate to the ENGVAR in use (the worst are a hodge-podge of additions in random styles). The differences between ENGVARs are far from trivial.
I think there's too much "theoretical" discussion here, and not enough based on actual articles. Let me give a personal example. I took Cactus through to GA status, trying to maintain the established AmE. It was hard for me, being used to writing BrE. The final quality owes quite a bit to American copy-editors (e.g. User:Gigemag76). It's not simply a case of spelling differences; there both obvious and very subtle differences in grammar between the two ENGVARS. An amalgamated "cosmopolitan English" would simply be bad English. A useful way for me to check that I'm at least roughly maintaining AmE is to copy the text into a Microsoft Word document and run it though the spelling and grammar checker set to US English. This immediately flags up any occurrences of ", and ". as incorrect. They just are incorrect in current AmE. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:09, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

• For someone like me, who works towards WP:ENGVAR compliance, I actually (ironically?) dislike WP:ENGVAR. And I certainly dislike this attempt by opponents of LQ to "ghettoise" LQ in a particular code. The use of TQ or LQ doesn't necessarily impinge upon the code of English used, and the argumentation is all being driven down the wrong track by American editors who are disdainful of LQ. I actually prefer to see one uniform code/style used throughout, and I believe what we have now is about right. However, anecdotally, although LQ is already in guidelines, I often come across articles where the quotes follow either or both. That IMHO, is undesirable. How we got there is irrelevant, but we should ensure compliance it in a way that is easy/possible for bots to follow. The simplest, is to follow the current guideline stipulation. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 08:52, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, LQ is actually harder to maintain because it depends on knowing the punctuation in the source, and indeed sometimes it is difficult/impossible to verify whether or not particular cases are compliant; TQ does not have this problem as the punctuation is applied consistently. Secondly, just because it might be easier to allow only one style rather than two does not make it better, as the result requires the use of a style which is generally not used in combination with particular variants of English which are expressly allowed. Thirdly, referring to Options B or C as attempts to "ghettoise" LQ is unhelpful and disrespectful. Fourthly, please remember that this is not all about American vs British editors; the English-speaking world (and English-speaking Wikipedia editors) are much broader than that.

One wonders whether, if TQ were the current position, the current proponents for Option A would have favoured an option of choice rather than maintaining a uniform style that they do not prefer. —sroc (talk) 09:23, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I regret that fact that some supporters of Options B and C do seem to see this as a nationalistic issue.* Hopefully my strong support for Option B makes it clear that it goes beyond that. Suppose we had a two stage RfC. (1) "Should we maintain a uniform style for punctuation around closing quotes?" – I would oppose this. But if it succeeded and was followed by (2) "What should that style be?", I would unhesitatingly support TQ even though I personally prefer LQ. TQ is undoubtedly easier to use – it's a mechanical rule rather than dependent on the source, hence it's easy to learn even if you are used to LQ; it's used by the majority of native English speakers and by the majority of modern published texts in English. So supporters of uniformity should really be pushing for Option D: TQ only. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:59, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

* A nice example of ENGVAR differences. In my dialect, I can't say "I regret that some supporters ..."; I can only follow the verb "regret" by a noun (including a gerund). It appears that this use of "I regret that ..." is ok in AmE. As I noted above, ENGVAR differences are real and should be respected, down to punctuation. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:07, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Uh? But you did say it! Anyhow, in any dialect you can say "That some supporters of Options B and C do seem to see this as a nationalistic issue is regrettable". Thus, "that some supporters .. nationalistic issue" is a noun clause, and so you can regret it after all, if you like. --Stfg (talk) 10:29, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

We're off-topic here – my fault – but I didn't say "it", I wrote "I regret the fact that ...". In my dialect, I can say "It's regrettable that ..." but not "I regret that ..." only e.g. "Something I regret is that ..." Peter coxhead (talk) 08:54, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Whoa, Q. There is a difference between elitism and a preference for excellence over amateurism. There are many spoken forms of English, but even the people who speak them will tell you that they're informal. There's pretty much just the one formal, written form of American English, and that's what we're trying to use here on Wikipedia.

OhConfucious, there is a whole section full of sources in this very thread. There absolutely is a national split on this issue. American style guides require that periods and commas be placed inside. American teachers require it. American publications use it. American English requires it. We see national variety as relevant because the sources do. Add to this the fact that none of the complaints about American English punctuation can be backed up, no sources, no real-life examples, no Wikipedia examples, and the requirement for British/L style across the board boils down to a personal preference for an incorrect style, imposed on others on a whim.

So the fact that people see this as a nationalistic issue isn't regrettable. It means they can read. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:02, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Once again, there are more ENGVARs than just British English and US English; there has already been lengthy discussion about the mixed use of LQ and TQ in Australia, for example; much less is there consensus on which style (if either) would be favoured in connection with other ENGVARs. For all we know, there are some ENGVARs (other than US English) that universally use TQ and do not recognise LQ as an acceptable alternative. —sroc (talk) 12:20, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

American English fits that description. The only guides that even permit British/L are for specialized forms of writing not relevant to Wikipedia.

Yes, there are more than two varieties of English. Again, the list of sources above shows this. The point is not that there are only two. The point is that this issue tends to vary along national lines rather than randomly. Does British English permit both? Some of the evidence seems to suggest this. Does American English permit both? The answer is pretty clearly "No." Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:31, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Some of the mis-understandings seem to be about exactly what it means to say "permit" in relation to an ENGVAR. American English "permits" both "theater" and "theatre" in specific contexts (see the mixed spellings in Theater District, New York). British English "permits" the spelling "nationalize" (in the Oxford spelling variant). Very rarely, but nevertheless not never, as sources have shown, American English "permits" LQ (or more accurately a vanishingly small proportion of American publications require it). This contrasts with, say, "color" and "colour" in the two ENGVARs which (as far as I know) are never permitted in BrE and AmE respectively.

There has been an argument that only those styles/practices which are completely forbidden are covered by ENGVAR, so it's ok for Wikipedia to require LQ in AmE in the interests of uniformity. But we don't say this for the other cases I've mentioned above. We don't say that "theatre" is uniformly required because it's not totally absent from AmE. We don't say that "nationalize" is uniformly required because it's not totally absent from BrE. We follow the sources for "theater/theatre" in AmE and for the coherent style "BrE, Oxford spelling". So why say that LQ is uniformly required? Here too we should follow the overwhelming majority of sources. To me the argument for uniformity in quotation style is illogical (and thus particularly odd from those preferring "logical" quotation). Why be concerned about uniformity that is absent in parallel examples, or about hypothetical* closer fidelity to sources in quotations but not be concerned about fidelity to sources for styles?
(*No-one has ever provided a real example from Wikipedia where TQ provides significantly better fidelity, in spite of repeated challenges.) Peter coxhead (talk) 08:54, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Pc most Britons will know that if they read an article which contains the word "color" and "leveler" that either they are misspelling or American spellings (or not realize that the words are incorrectly spelled), this knowledge will be derived from what is taught in school before the age of 17. However most children are taught only logical punctuation for quotations, so most Britons who have no knowledge about other styles or punctuation around quotations will assume that punctuation in a quote is part of the quote. Most Americans with the same level of education I presume will assume that punctuation immediately after a quote is a mistake like "colour" but will not be mislead by it. So logical punctuation is a fail-safe for all readers of an article and can be justified and encouraged under WP:COMMONALITY -- PBS (talk) 09:29, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I would accept this argument if you really mean it. That is, if you are willing to accept the consequences of applying precisely the same argument to cases other than punctuation around closing quote marks. We should use Oxford spelling in all British English in Wikipedia because Americans will see e.g. "realize" as correct in AmE; Britons who are rarely if ever taught Oxford spelling these days will assume it is a mistake but will not be misled by it. So Oxford spelling is a fail-safe for all readers of an article and can be justified and encouraged under WP:COMMONALITY. You agree? As one who uses Oxford spelling whenever possible, I certainly do. Onwards to the synthetic "Wikipedia English" with maximum commonality. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:08, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

It is not a matter of a trade! I said it was a fail safe. What you are suggesting as a trade carries no such implication. If a Brit sees realize (s)he will either realise that it is a correct spelling or think that it is a spelling mistake, just as an American will either recognize that recognise is an alternative British spelling or think it is a spelling mistake, in neither case is the reader mislead as they can be with punctuation within a quote where there is no obvious mistake to be seen. -- PBS (talk) 13:37, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

PBS, if you're going to argue that American punctuation misleads people, please cite at least one case of that actually happening. It's been around for over a hundred and fifty years and on the Internet as long as there's been an Internet. How come none of its detractors on or off Wikipedia have ever found any non-hypothetical problems? This isn't rhetorical. If you've seen a real case of a person being misled, you should cite it here. It would be relevant. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:18, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

It's not like there are going to be people testifying to this that one could source. It's about how long it takes to parse and understand a sentence - people adjust but having to do so detracts from the flow of the passage. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 14:35, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Grandiose, incorrect or sloppy punctuation interrupts the flow of the passage. I've witnessed this happening and I'm guessing that you have too. You want me to support a policy that requires what is in American English incorrect punctuation based on something that I haven't witnessed and for which absolutely no evidence has been offered. This is comparable to saying that we should spell "freight" without the g because the g interrupts the flow.

Come on. You've never read a news article that used American English and seen in the comments section that people misunderstood something? You've never seen an error in subsequent Wikiediting? Ever? If not, then maybe this isn't as big of a problem as people are saying. It's kind of like how people don't pronounce "centre" as "sen-treh." It looks like it would confuse people, but in practice it does not. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:58, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Darkfrog24 it is an important issue in articles about computer programming and can cause immediate difficulties when trying to understand computer commands. See the example given for the vi command "dd" in:

• Raymond, Eric S., ed. (1996). The New Hacker's Dictionary (3, illustrated, reprint ed.). MIT Press. pp. 14–15. ISBN 9780262680929.

So as requested one example provided. -- PBS (talk) 02:01, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

This isn't a non-hypothetical example. The author made it up. The author is not saying that this did happen. He's saying "It sure looks like this would happen, wouldn't it? I really bet this would happen." But the author offers no evidence that it actually does or ever has. This is like saying that we shouldn't use British spelling because people will think that "centre" is pronounced "sen-treh." It looks like it would work that way, but it doesn't. The author seems to be assuming that human readers process text the same way that computers do, and they do not. When people type in character strings that are meant to be repeated symbol-for-symbol, they are careful. American English actually makes an exception for such cases, so requiring correct American English wouldn't create any problems in this type of case.

Let's assume for the sake of argument that enough readers would make this mistake to make it worth our while to use British style when dealing with raw character strings. Those are rare on Wikipedia. Why would it be necessary to require British-style punctuation for the cases that actually occur often, like the titles of short-form works and quotations of written and spoken words? Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:17, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

May I request closure?

Would anyone object to my requesting formal closure of this? --Stfg (talk) 10:04, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Support – I was thinking this myself; active discussion seems to have ceased. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:40, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose at this time - New people are still contributing. It's unusual for an RfC to remain active this long, but it is still active. Even though we would probably do better with an unbiased and less misleading RfC, this one should be allowed to come to an end on its own. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:28, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Request for comment regarding tense for past events.

Should past events in Day of the Year articles be written in past tense or present? InedibleHulk (talk) 12:56, July 4, 2013 (UTC)

• Past I think it's clear that English has a past tense for a reason. Wikipedia seems to agree at WP:TENSE. These events have happened, they are not happening. I brought this up at the Days of the Year Wikiproject.

Apparently, there's a rule against it and this rule should stay because newspaper headlines use present tense, the rule hasn't been opposed since 2004, writing in the wrong tense isn't a problem and we should ignore all rules, including the one about a Wikiproject being unable to overrule a general guideline without first convincing the broader community. As far as I can tell, there was never a discussion to convince even the Wikiproject, just this edit. (talk) 13:03, July 4, 2013 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a newspaper... While "In the news" blurbs on the Main Page can be written in present tense... articles on events should be written in the past tense. Blueboar (talk) 13:29, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

These are not really articles, they are lists. In essence they are lists of blurbs about events. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 13:34, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Irrelevant... Lists are considered "articles in listified format" on Wikipedia. Blueboar (talk) 16:04, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

• Present WP:TENSE states "discussion of history is usually written in the past tense" (my emphasis), but timelines are not discussion and are frequently written in the present tense. (Maybe WP:TENSE should mention this?) WikiProject Years appears to use the presnt tense too, though I can't see it stated as a style guideline there. --Stfg (talk) 13:44, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Technically, no article has discussion. That takes more than one voice. But these are complete sentences, expressing facts of history in English ("a formal treatment of a topic in speech or writing"). As close to "discussion" as we get, so it can be assumed to be what is meant. A timeline is one of those graph-like things with the date running along the bottom apparently what these lists are called here. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:51, July 4, 2013 (UTC)

The entries are not intentionally complete sentences. Sometimes simply "Battle of Blah Blah" is listed. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 13:58, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I fixed a few of those sentence fragments, too. If for nothing else, your Wikiproject's goals include article consistency. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:00, July 4, 2013 (UTC)

• Present The events on the DOY pages represent a point in time view of historical events. I don't feel there is a problem presenting them in a present tense form. As Stfg said, we're not having discussions about history in an narrative context in these pages. We're creating lists of or blurbs about events. If you take a particular event like Thomas Edison invents the lightbulb. It is listed on a date next to a year. When you think about what happened on this date, present tense seems appropriate. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 15:17, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. If the choice is between -

• "July 4, 1776 - United States declares it's independence from Great Brittan"

and

• "July 4, 1776 - United States declared it's independence from Great Brittain"

I find the latter to be more encyclopedic and appropriate. Blueboar (talk) 16:04, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

We'll disagree on this point. The latter just doesn't look or feel right in the context that we're talking about. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 16:22, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

• Comment As "encyclopedic" has been used, let's see some:
  • Britannica Online has a Timelines section. Here's an example from its Arts subsection, entry for 1904: The young Pablo Picasso paints his elegiac "Woman Ironing," which reveals the depth and distinctive vision of his Blue Period.
  • This example is from Credoreference: 20,000–10,000 b.c. -- Humans cross Siberian land bridge to North America.
  • Here is oxfordreference.com's timeline for 1000-600 BCE: c. 1000 BCE -- The Jews write down the Torah, the earliest part of the text subsequently known to Christians as the Old Testament.

These are the first three examples I looked at. I didn't see any past tenses on the way. --Stfg (talk) 17:17, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

1. That's definitely an enyclopedia, but Wikipedia:1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica suggests using it for information only, and adopting Wikipedia's guidelines for sourcing and formatting. Granted, the 1911 version is older than the online, but the basic idea that we have a distinct style here is relevant. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:54, July 5, 2013 (UTC)

2. Not sure about this one. I just get a login screen. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:54, July 5, 2013 (UTC)

3. That's actually from HistoryWorld.net. Just indexed on an Oxford site. Does that site count as an encyclopedia? InedibleHulk (talk) 02:54, July 5, 2013 (UTC)

The examples are published timelines, at any rate. Rather than debate whether something qualifies as an encyclopedia, it's probably better to find examples of timelines. (The Credo one is subscription-required.) --Stfg (talk) 10:55, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

A lot of these other timelines are in simple table format, or done with a "newspaper from the past" gimmick. In those cases, headlinese and present tense description in an "Event" column are more appropriate than in a list of sentences like ours. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:14, July 5, 2013 (UTC)

• Present For me the part dealing with events is a timeline; every single event is dealt with with one entry in this timeline, and represents what has happened on this defined day in a certain year, each entry for itself; imagine having been present while each event happens: then Picasso paints his Woman Ironing, and Edison invents the lightbulb. I find the arguments by Mufka and Stfg rather compelling, especially the excerpts from Britannica online listed above. As a sidethought: one could, at a pinch, also describe events like this " xxxx Invention of the lightbulb by Edison" (Alas: I have not looked in the MoS if this is permitted). Lectonar (talk) 21:05, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

That's what baffles me. You say it represents what has happened. Why should we imagine we are present for a 1215 event in these articles anymore than we do in articles with paragraphs? Maybe it's just me, but I know I'm in 2013. Imagination is for storybooks. The only MoS guideline we have on the matter seems to agree, recommending present tense for fiction (which happens as one reads/watches), and past for history (which happened before, but no more). We even have cleanup tags specifically designed for this problem. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:27, July 5, 2013 (UTC)

Of course it has happened in the past, but these are different kind of shoes, as is your link to the cleanup-tag....Lectonar (talk) 07:58, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Could you rephrase that? You lost me on to what "these" refers, whether "different kind of shoes" simply means different things, how my link ties into anything and what the ellipsis is for. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:14, July 5, 2013 (UTC)

• Present tense is pretty conventional for timeline events, as others have pointed out and documented. The alternative past tense style is probably sometimes used, too, but I think I'd stick with present for a day-of-year article with its headline-like phrases. Dicklyon (talk) 00:54, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
• Comment.—English has more than one present tense and more than one past tense, and the choice of which one to use can be important. Waldo explores America. Waldo does explore America. Waldo is exploring America. Waldo explored America. Waldo was exploring America. Waldo has been exploring America. Waldo has explored America. Waldo had been exploring America. Waldo had explored America. Here is just one external page illustrating them.

  Also, using different tenses together correctly is important. In 1900, Dora returned to the island that she had discovered in 1899, and told the inhabitants that she would be leaving the island in 1901. In 1900, Dora returns to the island that she discovered in 1899, and tells the inhabitants that she will be leaving the island in 1901. An editor who has chosen to write from the perspective of a particular tense can easily lose that perspective and slip into another perspective. Please see the article "Sequence of tenses".—Wavelength (talk) 03:04, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I think I have a good grasp on that, and have considered it when editing. "The Convention of Artlenburg was signed, leading to the French occupation of Hanover (which had been ruled by the British king)". Do you see any problems with how tenses are used (as far as sequence goes, not past vs present preference) in today's article? InedibleHulk (talk) 03:16, July 5, 2013 (UTC)

I examined the article "July 5" (version of 14:21, 5 July 2013), and I did not find that particular incongruence within a sentence or paragraph of a single listed item, although I found the 1941 event (under "Events") expressed in the simple present tense ("reach"), among other listed events expressed in the simple past tense.

—Wavelength (talk) 15:20, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, got it. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:32, July 5, 2013 (UTC)

• Present—but I have no objection if local editors decide to render a particular timeline consistently in past tense.

  Wavelength, I believe your list of examples is combination of tense and other grammatical features, which could be a little confusing in this context (whereas English has 36 tenses to choose from if we need to exemplify just that feature). For example:

  "Waldo explores America"—marked, since it's a material rather than mental clause ("Waldo's exploring America" would be unmarked);

  "Waldo does explore America"—also marked, but in a different way (it's constrastive), by unfusing the verb "explores" into "does explore" (all English verbs except be and in some varieties have are fused in the most common occurrences—that is, when all three of these conditions apply: (i) plain present or plain past tense, and (ii) neutral, and (iii) active voice. Tony (talk) 03:24, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Some of those terms (in your post) are associated with systemic functional grammar.

—Wavelength (talk) 15:41, 5 July 2013 (UTC) and 18:56, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

• Present (and also in timelines, eg Timeline of information theory) -- because it's more immediate, encouraging the reader to place themself into the frame of the event happening, rather than looking back at a fossilised piece of history. Jheald (talk) 12:01, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

"Fossils, schmossils. You can't stop progress because of some musty old bones. Bones, schmones!"

Again, imagining yourself in the moment is for storybooks. In the real world (which Wikipedia covers), history actually does happen to other people in another time. Boring, but true. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:28, July 5, 2013 (UTC)

• Present tense is fine. It's not unusual to use present tense when writing timelines, which is essentially what each DOY page is. Also, it ain't broke, so it don't need fixing. —howcheng {chat} 16:21, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
• Point-of-reference based, which would usually be present tense in this context. The reader (and English tenses in general) work comfortably and are readily interpreted from an established time reference. In this case, cueing the point of reference as the date in question is natural and trivial: use of the present tense itself acts as the cue. There is one substantial advantage to present tense: any references that relate from that perspective use a simpler tense structure by virtue of one less remove, and timeline-based event descriptions rarely need to reference the present date. In effect, each verb would have one less "had" attached to it. The counterexamples, say a history book, does not have a natural mechanism of establishing a point of reference, because in the present tense the point of reference would be shifting with the narrative. In a timeline, the listed date establishes the point of reference unambiguously and trivially for each entry. — Quondum 23:25, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

You don't think these lists shift the "present" with each line? They skip ahead years or even centuries. Using the current date as the point of reference point requires no shifting, no cue and no need to put one's mind into several eras per article (most of which we can't properly imagine, anyway). InedibleHulk (talk) 07:03, July 6, 2013 (UTC)

• Present in this very limited context When you have a list of dates and things that happened on that date, the historical present strikes me as more elegant style. However I find that in general present tense is used inappropriately in articles about past events and extinct biological taxa, especially in the first sentence. (The article on the Whitechapel murders once began [t]he Whitechapel murders are..., as though these poor women were being eternally murdered.) --Trovatore (talk) 23:29, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Tragically, the brutal murder of the first still perpetually occurs on April 3. Another prostitute, another double standard. As vividly rhetorical and elegant as ghost stories and historical presence are, they suit other places better than where "plain English works best" and "unnecesarilly complex wording" is discouraged.

In a BBC vault headline or table with a header named Event (where one naturally figures anything in that column is a description of the event, independent of time or anything else in another column), it makes sense. In an encyclopedia, rewording a sentence to bring the reader into an exciting world, separate from their own, is obviously adding a layer of complexity, if not verging on lying. History really happened, on this very earth to our actual ancestors. This should be acknowledged as true, not a good story.

And if some readers are as engrossed in the narrative as some of you think, wouldn't the shift back to reality when a Wikilink is clicked be about as jarring as The Lawnmower Man being yanked out of his helmet? One minute, they're being introduced to Jack the Ripper in the filthy London fog. The next, all the characters are dead and they're staring at a screen with factual information on it. That must suck. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:03, July 6, 2013 (UTC)

• Timelines should be in present tense, everything else just sounds wrong. Agathoclea (talk) 16:34, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

• Simple past.—I prefer the simple past tense for main clauses in lists of past events, because it accurately describes those events from the perspective of the reader in the present time. Also, it probably is (in comparison with the present tense) less prone to errors in the sequence of tenses.—Wavelength (talk) 17:28, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
• Present tense - because it is standard practice for this kind of listing, however counterintuitive it might seem. Let us not imitate the archaic grammarians who insisted in fitting English to the procrustean bed of overexact logic, thus depriving us of the intensifying of the double negative. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:21, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Side discussion about closing

• Conclusion of RfC Is there any need for this RfC to continue? Or is it clear enough that the general opinion is that present tense is appropriate and no change to WP:DAYS is needed? -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 14:52, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah... this RfC can be concluded. I still think it should be changed... but even I think there is a clear consensus for not changing it. Blueboar (talk) 15:52, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

This RfC is not about the past side changing the local rule, it's about the present side changing the general rule that clashes with it. Per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, those who wish exemption need to convince the wider community they are right. Until then, your Wikiproject rule is overruled, by default. If this concludes without someone being convinced enough to amend WP:TENSE, the lists rightfully go into past tense, as it says non-fictional history should.

Remember, "Consensus is determined by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy." Not how many people have the general opinion of "I like it" or "This is how so-and-so does it". InedibleHulk (talk) 09:33, July 17, 2013 (UTC)

The question of debate for this RfC was "Should past events in Day of the Year articles be written in past tense or present?" That question has been clearly answered. Are you now suggesting that you wish to change the question? If so, please withdraw this RfC and start it over in a way that will, when debate is completed, allow you to accept the outcome and move on. So far, it seems you have no basis in Wikipedia policy for your position on this topic. You keep referring to WP:TENSE not realizing that it is an essay, not a policy. There is no need to petition to amend WP:TENSE because it has no teeth. I find no policy that specifically supports your argument about past vs present tense. This discussion has thus far confirmed longstanding consensus for the current practice of listing events in the present tense. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 20:13, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I know what the question is, I wrote it. You seem to understand it, too. We apparently have different ideas about the point of asking, though.

I'm not trying to change your local rule. I was, at the project talk page, but you ended that discussion. After that, it became a question of the validity of your rule, given LOCALCONSENSUS, TENSE and the MOS. ("Plain English works best. Avoid unnecessarily complex wording"). You're right that the entire "Writing better articles" essay isn't a guideline, but the relevant section on tense is connected to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction, which is a guideline, as the cleanup tag says.

So that's two guidelines to your zero. You call it a "longstanding consensus", but it is against policy, not supported by policy and not even discussed at your Wikiproject or elsewhere. Remember, a closer determines consensus after discarding arguments "that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only and those that are logically fallacious." InedibleHulk (talk) 20:56, July 17, 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction says nothing about writing about history. Template:Cleanup-tense merely links back to WP:TENSE, wrongly calling it a guideline. That essay, by the way, also links to Historical present, which in its opening paragraph explains clearly enough the use of the present tense "in writing about history, especially in historical chronicles (listing a series of events)". --Stfg (talk) 21:36, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

It says "By convention, these synopses should be written in the present tense, as this is the way that the story is experienced as it is read or viewed (see also WP:TENSE)". When we see WP:TENSE, as directed, we read about distinguishing fact from fiction. It's all tied together, at least the way I read it.

I addressed the historical present Wikilink earlier, though maybe not clearly. Yes, it is used in some chronicles. But those don't have a guideline saying to avoid ambiguity (did it happen or is it happening? Dramatic narrative or factual claim?) and unnecessary complex wording. When we attempt to make our writing vivid by replacing plain English with rhetoric, that's complex and obviously not necessary. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:04, July 17, 2013 (UTC)

All the above notwithstanding, if the raiser wishes the RFC to remain open, I guess it would be wisest to await the completion of the standard 28-day period. --Stfg (talk) 21:36, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I think you're over analyzing this whole thing. You're not giving readers enough credit. Looking at the description of an event that occurred in 1870, no reader with even a rudimentary understanding of English will not be able to determine if the event is happening now or in the past due to the tense of the statement. There is no complex wording or ambiguity. The longstanding consensus is not explicitly against any policy. Consensus does not need to form only after long drawn out discussions. This essay explains that clearly. You're also forgetting a very important fact: This policy explains that written rules do not set accepted practice. The current practice, is one of these accepted practices. Regardless of what some policy says somewhere (and none does), the community at large has accepted present tense as the norm in date articles. Strong evidence of this is found in the fact that the practice has been ongoing for many years, and one person has objected. The discussion above provides further evidence that those who are interested enough to comment (which is the only way to gauge community opinion) feel that the current practice is acceptable and should continue. This also illustrates that we are not talking about a local consensus. If discussion needs to continue, let's keep WP:TENSE and WP:LOCALCONSENSUS out of it because they don't apply. For good measure let's also leave out MOS because I don't think anyone will agree that we're dealing with unnecessarily complex wording. But without those, I don't see any argument to be made. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 00:06, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I didn't say the idea was ambiguous, just the wording. Unnecessarily so, since, even if most people get the gist of it, it's still against the grain of plain English. We could mispell words, leave out punctuation, throw in some LOLs and people would still understand. But it's not the way it should be.

The practice was accepted. Now it's not. These things sometimes change when editors like me speak up. About that, you may want to count the others who were "interested enough to comment" about prefering past tense. Once the pure opinion votes alone are subtracted, we're tied. Not exactly a strong consensus for the status quo.

Have you ever reverted someone for changing the tense, who then didn't make a deal out of it? Those count as objections, too, even if they're easier to quash.

I think I'll pass on your request to leave the basis of my argument out of it. But it was worth a shot. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:25, July 18, 2013 (UTC)

I don't see your logic in "once the pure opinion votes alone are subtracted". I don't really know what that means. I only see two other editors who prefer some form of past tense and one of those said consensus for present was clear even though he didn't like it. I also need clarification of your distinction between idea and wording. Wording where? In WP:DAYS? If that's the case, then let's fix the wording. And as far as reverting tense changes, those who use the wrong tense generally don't know that WP:DAYS exists and that the events should be in present tense. Those don't count as objections, they're just uninformed. It's a bit like someone in Massachusetts getting a citation for selling a purple chicken. Did you know that was illegal? -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 12:12, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

In WP:Closing discussions#How to determine the outcome, it lists the kinds of comments to be disregarded, including "those based on personal opinion only". Those seem to be what Dicklyon, Howcheng, Agathoclea and you are offering. Others seem to be "logically fallacious". Of course, that's not my call to make.

A sentence can be written ambiguously enough that it could be taken to mean something else, though an English reader with average intelligence would understand the gist. "Adolf Hitler publishes his personal manifesto Mein Kampf" could be taken to mean he is perpetually publishing it, while "Adolf Hitler published his personal manifesto Mein Kampf" unambiguously says what happened on July 18, 1925. It's a small problem, but shouldn't exist when the solution is so simple.

Fixing the wording is all this has ever been about.

You call the editors you've reverted "uninformed", but did you inform them? How so? "Events should be in present tense" is an arbitrary rule that some guy stuck in your style guide a minute after he rejoined the Wikiproject. There was no local discussion, no local consensus. Seeing a grammar problem and trying to fix it is absolutely an act of objection. After being reverted, maybe they assumed there was a good reason or just couldn't be bothered to argue. I know there is no good reason and have plenty of free time.

Overseeing articles and reverting those who object is not a sign of a "longstanding consensus", since consensus is based on policy and discussion.

And no, I wasn't even aware purple chickens existed. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:53, July 18, 2013 (UTC)

I think at this point we're left to wait for an uninvolved third party to evaluate the discussion and come to a closing decision on the RfC. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 21:12, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, should happen on July 32, by my math. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:28, July 18, 2013 (UTC)

Just a touch to keep this on this page so it doesn't get archived before closure. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 11:25, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Rename to curly apostrophe

Please could we have a look at Parkinson’s law of triviality which has recently been moved with the edit comment "redirect allows search with r-side-s-quote and avoids url munge (%27s)". Despite the edit comment justification this seems to be against MOS:QUOTEMARKS and not something we want to happen to all the articles with apostrophes or quotes in the titles. I will notify the author. --Mirokado (talk) 00:34, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

If you or User:Dvdrtrgn would explain "r-side-s-quote", then this discussion would be helped along.

—Wavelength (talk) 00:47, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

"right-side single quote", or as I put it "curly apostrophe", which is in the new title of the article. --Mirokado (talk)

The move has now been reverted by User:Oknazevad. --Mirokado (talk) 01:20, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Good. We don't use curly quotation marks, per MOS:QUOTEMARKS, but you knew that. —sroc 💬 03:05, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Could we at least call things by their names instead of making up new ones? It hinders communication if we don't use the same names for things. Yes, you can choose to use non-standard fleemishes and the reader can still gloork the meaning from the context, but there ix a limit; If too many ot the vleeps are changed, it becomes harder and qixer to fllf what the wethcz is blorping, and evenually izs is bkb longer possible to ghilred frok at wifx. Dnighth? Ngfipht yk ur! Uvq the hhvd or 'hnnngh.' Blorgk? Blorgk! Blorgkity-blorgk!!!! --Guy Macon (talk) 05:14, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Unicode names are hardly going to facilitate communication among normal people (are there any of those around?). What they call an apostrophe is not what typographers call an apostrophe, for example. Dicklyon (talk) 05:28, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh dear, this is Parkinson's law of triviality in situ. We prefer "Parkinson%27s_law_of_triviality" over "Parkinson’s_law_of_triviality"? (Although we believe MOS:QUOTEMARKS is about style for within articles.) Guess I got what was coming to me---and came looking for... dvdrtrgn (talk) 22:41, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Considering we never actually link to the URL, but to wiki links, which contain no underscores and are plain text between the double square brackets, and considering most keyboards produce straight quote marks and apostrophes, yes we do prefer "Parkinson's law of triviality". oknazevad (talk) 23:46, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

As the MOS states, it applies as much to titles as to other parts of articles. Why would one think otherwise? I'm not keen on this provision about not using fancy quotes, but as long as that's the consensus guideline, let's stick with it. And yes, if the guideline said to paint all bike sheds green, I'd resist your efforts to argue that we should paint yours red; even as the world crumbles around us. Dicklyon (talk) 00:54, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

The guidelines to avoid curly quotes (or whatever you want to call them) do indeed apply both to article text and article titles, and has done as long as I can remember it being discussed. I don't believe AT states it explicitly, but it does defer to MOSQUOTE on the issue of apostrophes, which is much the same thing. Andrew Gray (talk) 16:29, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Familiar terms

I have seen the argument of unfamiliarity on the part of readers being used in arguing for a traditionalist approach to presentation on WP. I am unaware that it is an entrenched guideline (though see "The IEC prefixes kibi-, mebi-, gibi-, etc. (symbols Ki, Mi, Gi, etc.) are not familiar to most Wikipedia readers [...], so are generally not to be used except under the following circumstances:"), and I personally find it spurious. It could even be used to argue that established scientific standards, units etc. should not be used in WP. I have seen a version of this argument used to motivate that an article (Electronvolt) should be renamed by historical frequency of usage of competing terms, and not by what has been mandated by the relevant standards bodies since 2004. Taken to the extreme, it would suggest that WP is only intended to, and should only try to capture "the sum of all common knowledge", and thus not attempt to be a true reference. In the present-it-only-in-a-form-that-is-familiar-to-the-typical-reader argument seems to be a dangerous bias of traditionalism that would keep WP behind its intended and potential purpose, were it not for the numerous editors who would feel that such a guideline is inappropriate and would thus ignore such a "guideline".

My question is: Should the MOS not tackle this, before it grows too much momentum, and stunts WP's potential as a reference? — Quondum 15:56, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I am revising the heading of this section from Underground guideline? (attitudinal information) to Familiar terms (topical information), in harmony with WP:TPOC, point 13 (Section headings). Please see Microcontent: How to Write Headlines, Page Titles, and Subject Lines. The new heading facilitates recognition of the topic in links and watchlists and tables of contents, and it facilitates maintenance of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Register.

—Wavelength (talk) 16:17, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

This has been dealt with in great detail at WP:UNITS. The consensus is that Ki (which should logically be "ki"), Mi, Gi, etc., are not used in the real world, except in the circumstances referenced. It is a standard, but although IEEE is one of the member organizations of the standards subcommittee, it is no longer used in IEEE journals. In fact it's not used in any scientific journals not produced by the standards committee. See the "Binary prefixes" archives of Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers for more details than you want to see. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:20, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I was not trying to discuss the choice of units; what I was trying to draw attention to with that guideline was the predicate of a guideline being familiarity by the readers. Please do not divert this thread into the discussion of that specific guideline's conclusion. Notability should trump reader familiarity in WP – shouldn't it? Even if the guideline's conclusion remains unaltered, it should be rewritten to exclude reader non-familiarity as its primary/sole motivation. And it should be a principle that reference value trumps familiarity. — Quondum 16:43, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Quondum, I'm having difficulty understanding what you want to happen. I understand you sometimes see people using an argument which you find spurious and which you don't believe to be an "entrenched guideline", but could you be more specific about how you'd like the MOS to "tackle this". --Stfg (talk) 18:33, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough, it is a bit woolly. In trying to formulate a clear answer, my hope for a linkable meta-guideline or principle to help direct emotive attitudes on the topic seems to be difficult to put together.

For now, in the binary prefix example, I'd suggest removing "are not familiar to most Wikipedia readers, so", which would not change the guideline, but would remove a visible example that could serve as a prototype for bad reasoning. This phrase was not in the original consensus text from the archive, but was introduced later. — Quondum 00:41, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I can see that, although some reason seems appropriate. Perhaps changing "are not familiar to most Wikipedia readers" to "are rarely used, even in technical articles". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:51, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I imagine that putting in a good reason will make more people comfortable when reading the guideline (less negative reaction). The impression I got in scanning the archive is that these prefixes are nearly absent from secondary sources. Your wording is a nice non-jargon way of expressing this. — Quondum 19:10, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I think you have to draw a distinction between the knowledge being collected/described and the terminology and style used to do so. Using commonly-understood terminology and style does not have to limit the completeness or accuracy of most of the subject matter. In other words, I don't think anyone is suggesting not to discuss the MiB/MB controversy in an article about units of measurement for storage; we just don't want to use it in every article that happens to mention the storage capacity of a device. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 01:05, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Clarification regarding when to include links to redirects on disambiguation pages

I have initiated a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages#Clarification regarding WP:DABREDIR seeking to clarify when to apply one of the exceptions to the general rule that "redirects should not be used in disambiguation pages." It would be great to get wider input there. Thanks! —sroc 💬 21:53, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

This reversion of this revision has a misleading edit summary. My purpose in revising this particular heading was not clarity, but it was brevity.

—Wavelength (talk) 16:43, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Distances between locations

In articles about smaller locations, it is common to introduce them by indicating an approximate direction and distance from a larger location. For example "Salty is a town approximately 12 kilometers north of Miami." My question is: should we give the distance from the center of the larger place (i.e. downtown Miami) or from the nearest edge of the larger place (i.e. the northern boundary of Miami)? I cannot find this issue mentioned in the MOS pages. Did I miss it? If it is not present, which section does it belong in? Zero^talk 02:00, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:WikiProject Geographical coordinates/Linear.

—Wavelength (talk) 02:20, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, but it doesn't seem to solve the problem. Zero^talk 02:48, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Center to center. If you pick edge to edge, Baldwin, Florida is 0 miles from Jacksonville, Florida and Neptune Beach, Florida is also 0 miles from Jacksonville, Florida, but Baldwin, Florida is 34 Miles from Neptune Beach, Florida. City limits are arbitrary and political; you hit the Los Angeles city limit many miles before you reach anything resembling the edge of the city, but in Sitka Alaska you have a long, long drive from the edge of the city to the city limit. (Los Angeles is 469 square miles, while Sitka is over ten times bigger at 4,811 square miles). Center to center is the only sane way to measure this. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:25, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

If you check Google Maps or a roadmap, the travel distance is usually from town hall to town hall (Toronto, Ontario to Oakville, Ontario, for example). I'd be inclined to do the same, except with linear distance only. Geographic centres can be odd: the one for the Halifax Regional Municipality is in a gravel pit in the middle of nowhere.) Modal Jig (talk) 12:48, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I searched in WP:ASTRO and its subpages for an analogous guideline, but I did not find any.

—Wavelength (talk) 05:58, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I think we should not stipulate any one way, but should only provide distances when they are given in RSs, and we should then state what the RSs state :) --Stfg (talk) 07:42, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Gender Identity - confusing text

Just wondering what the logic is behind: "Nevertheless, avoid confusing or seemingly logically impossible text that could result from pronoun usage (for example: instead of He gave birth to his first child, write He became a parent for the first time)."

Why are we reacting to something that is rare/some people may not have heard of/thought about by hiding it? Would that be the stylistic choice when not dealing with gender identity? Given that (using the above example) some men can get pregnant and give birth, it may be confusing to some, but it isn't logically impossible. Encyclopaedias should be in the business of explaining things that confuse people rather than pretending they don't exist.

Also, we should be more clear that using pronoun sets apart from he/him and she/her is okay. Obviously the only appropriate pronouns to use for someone are the pronouns they identify with, but the identity section doesn't directly say that yet. The line currently is:

"Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to by the gendered nouns (for example "man/woman", "waiter/waitress", "chairman/chairwoman"), pronouns, and possessive adjectives that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification."

Which you'd think would be clear enough, but there have been edit wars where people have tried to stop appropriate pronoun sets from being used (i.e. zi/hir).

I'm proposing getting rid of the first bit I quoted, and changing the second bit to include a nod to non-binary gender. MartinLevine.91 (talk) 13:50, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

But that is just it; it is not okay to use words like "zi" and "hir." They are not part of the English language. They may be one day, but right now, they still have the status of made-up words. Our language does not have a singular gender-neutral pronoun appropriate for use with human subjects, and we have to deal with that within the confines of the language as it currently exists.

To solve one of the specific problems that you've brought up, how about, "[Person's name] became a parent for the first time" or even "[Person's surname] gave birth to a child"? Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:20, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Darkfrog, you're pointing towards the statement that transgender people should be referred to with no pronouns at all before the operation. Is that what WP:MOS says?? Georgia guy (talk) 00:45, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Our language does not have a singular gender-neutral pronoun...

But it does. Singular they —[AlanM1(talk)]— 01:11, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

AlanM1, the singular they has not yet become accepted in formal, written English, which is what we use on Wikipedia. It's working its way in, but it's not there yet.

Georgia Guy, no, I do not believe that gendered pronouns should be omitted from articles about transgender individuals, but when using "he" or "she" would be problematic, such as in the case that ML cites, then yes, the surname would work well. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:30, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Singular they is actually pretty well accepted in everyday English, http://oxforddictionaries.com/words/he-or-she-versus-they, it's even recommended by the UK government's style guide https://www.gov.uk/designprinciples/styleguide, but we should also use rarer pronoun sets where appropriate. When we have pages on physics we use words that are not in most dictionaries or understood by most people but are words within the field of physics, when are pages broach subject of gender, we should use the words that trans*people and gender theorists use.

Separately to that, does anyone have any objections to saying the literally true "he gave birth"? I recognise we could have get arounds by rewording either the "he" or the "gave birth", but I don't understand why those get arounds are necessary. MartinLevine.91 (talk) 08:19, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

If by "rarer pronoun sets" you mean made-up words, then the only situations in which they would be appropriate on Wikipedia would be when they themselves are being discussed. Words like "molality" are rare, but they are real. We had a similar issue with the treatment of bird names. When dealing with facts about a specific subject (wingspan, mating habits, etc.) then the professional journal articles should trump other sources, but when dealing with how to write about those facts (capitalization, spelling, usage, punctuation) then standard English style guides should trump other sources. There is more support among style guides for the singular they than, say for using British punctuation in American English, but it's still best to use it sparingly in anything written in a formal style. Creating a rule that required something like the singular they would not be best. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:41, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I would say that where appropriate would definitely include a BoLP situation in which the subject has indicated a preference for being pronouned as xie/hir or they/their -- or who, like me, takes either female or gender-neutral pronouns. Under the most respectful reading of the BoLP guidelines, that should be done. (I should also mention, as a person who favours using gender-neutral singular pronouns, that singular they grates on my ears because I'm not comfortable referring to a singular person in the plural.)

I'd also say that on some level we're in the descriptivist-prescriptivist quagmire here. Are gender-neutral pronouns real words because people actually do use them in the real world (the descriptivist view), or are they not real words because this or that authority has not approved them (the presciptivist view)? One some levels, there's no resolving this debate, shy of seeking authoritative approval, which would take time, but may be inevitable. Getheren (talk) 13:06, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Because we are dealing with formal, written English, then the fact that the authorities on formal, written English have not approved these words is relevant. So yes, this is prescriptivist. It's like clothes. We wear what's appropriate to the restaurant or the beach or the workplace depending on where we are. The level of formality depends on the type of writing. Do people use slang and neologisms and non-standard capitalization in their emails and on their blogs and in field-specific publications? Yes. That does not mean that Wikipedia should do so as well. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:49, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

On the other hand, there are vanishingly few neologisms or slang terms that any group of people of any size feels a need to argue strongly and persistently should be accepted in serious writing on Wikipedia. The mere fact that such a population exists for the gender-neutral pronouns places them somewhere outside the class of "slang" on the same level as "man, I was so yashed last night, I wound up praying to at the porcelain altar". And the fact that this conflict has persisted on Wikipedia, to my direct knowledge, for at least twelve years, makes the gender-neutral pronoun extraordinarily well-established and enduring for a "neologism". (Though I must admit that I expected a consensus on the spelling of the pronoun to have appeared by now.)

Whether any of this is in itself sufficient reason to accept the use of a gender-neutral third person singular pronoun is a separate (though interesting) question. However, I believe it is sufficient reason to think that a simplistic argument identifying them as "slang" or "neologisms" may be much more of a mantra than an argument.

Let me offer a compromise position, one which I'm perfectly willing to stand by. In other words, I offer it in explicit good faith and I'm not invested in maintaining an all-or-nothing position. Perhaps a consensus can be reached that within an identifiable context, in which these pronouns are useful and needed, they may acceptably be used, while outside that context they are to be deprecated (details to be settled by consensus). I feel certain that the population advocating for their use would generally be willing to make this compromise (there will be exceptions, but then on every side of every question there are absolutists who refuse compromise). Getheren (talk) 20:25, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Sounds interesting. Could you be more specific about what that "identifiable context" might be? --Stfg (talk) 20:54, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't think Wikipedia should use invented pronouns until such time as any reach mainstream usage (don't hold your breath). They look too pointy or self-conscious for our purposes here. 81.159.107.64 (talk) 01:18, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

But the subject here is how to refer to transgender people. A trans woman is a woman and must be referred to as she/her throughout her life. She differs from most women in that she had the wrong body before being fixed with surgery. Georgia guy (talk) 01:32, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand how your reply relates to what I wrote. 86.160.218.157 (talk) 02:13, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia shouldn't base its rules on fights that take place on Wikipedia. It should base its rules on reliable sources on formal written English in general. It shouldn't matter if a disproportionate number of Wikipedians think that something should be allowed. That's how we ended up with that stupid WP:LQ rule (Requiring incorrect punctuation? Really?). It should matter that a disproportionate number of English-language writers think that something should be allowed.

I'm not the only person you need to convince, Getheren, but no, I wouldn't use made-up words like "zi" and "hir" in the article space unless the words themselves were being discussed, for example, if it were an article about made-up words or about the jargon of transgenderism. I don't know what you mean specifically by "a context in which they are useful and needed," but I would not endorse them in an article about any human person until they enter mainstream usage. Because they are not at this time correct English, they are not useful or needed.

Bottom line: It is not for Wikipedia to reform or improve the English language. It is for Wikipedia to follow changes in the English language, not make them. If "zhi" and "hir" ever enter mainstream usage, we can always change the rule to allow them then. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:40, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:DASH in redirect category names

Please could DASH enthusiasts comment on Category:Redirects to non-English language terms to Category:Redirects to non-English-language terms and related category renamings currently at end of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy#Current nominations?

Also, I processed Category:Redirects from Komi-Permyak language terms to Category:Redirects from Komi-Permyak-language terms and Category:Redirects from Karachay-Balkar language terms to Category:Redirects from Karachay-Balkar-language terms. Please let me know here if those were wrong (or sub-optimal). – Fayenatic London 19:12, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Looks like correct nominations to me. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:15, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I see no dashes involved one way or the other. Dicklyon (talk) 14:11, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

The choice is between non-English-language and non-English–language. I agree with Good Ol’factory that the hyphen should be preferred over a dash. — Quondum 21:16, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

The order of operations can work in various ways: non-English-language and non–English-language and non-English–language. The last two of those are effectively synonymous with each other, and the first gives no indication of meaning anything else, so the first version seems to be preferable because of its simplicity.

—Wavelength (talk) 21:37, 30 July 2013 (UTC) and 21:44, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

You are pointing out a binding strength difference between a dash and a hyphen. Should this be mentioned in the WP:ENDASH guideline? (I tend to agree with your logic.) — Quondum 21:58, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

WP:HYPHEN seems to be a better place for it to be mentioned ("do use a hyphen" versus "do not use a dash").

—Wavelength (talk) 22:17, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Order of operations is a concept in mathematics and programming languages, not natural language. Where in any English grammar, style guide or usage guide is there such a concept for mixing hyphens and dashes? --Stfg (talk) 22:32, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Read WP:DASH and you'll see exactly that (this concept with dashes and spaces). — Quondum 02:31, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Already read. Nothing about "order of operations". More importantly, nothing about mixtures of hyphens and dashes. --Stfg (talk) 12:41, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

See WP:NDASH (a sub-subsection of the subsection WP:DASH), part 2 (a pro-establishment–anti-intellectual alliance; the Seeliger–Donker-Voet scheme) and part 3 ("Post–September 11 anti-war movement").

—Wavelength (talk) 14:24, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Ah, now I see. Thanks. --Stfg (talk) 14:40, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Note that the few mixed hyphen/dash consrtructs in our examples are to illustrate the application of specific usage patterns, which do not include this "precedence" concept. Multiple hyphens are what we would normally use in things like "non-English-language terms", since "non-Enlish language" is a noun compound used as an adjective there, which calls for a hyphen. There may be guides that would recommend doing this differently, and we could discuss those if someone has one, but otherwise it seems we're extrapolating a bit wildly to propose it. Dicklyon (talk) 15:49, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

@Wavelength: yes, I see that it is already partially implicitly covered under "Multi-hyphenated items". Trying to add this edge case more explicitly might be foolhardy. — Quondum 11:42, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

As far as I know, our dash guidelines do not recommend that kind of construct. If they do, please quote the relevant lines so we can see if they apply here. But my interpretation of the original question was just hyphen versus space, no? Dicklyon (talk) 03:23, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

The section heading "WP:DASH in redirect category names" is misleading, causing editors to think of dashes, instead of hyphens as illustrated in the original post. Perhaps the original poster is confusing hyphens with dashes. Your comment at 14:11 alludes to this.

—Wavelength (talk) 03:37, 31 July 2013 (UTC) and 05:00, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment on Correct and Incorrect Style Coloring in MOS

After perusing through the MOS for the last day, I only just now realized (as a newer editor) that styles that are incorrect are in red(?) and correct styles are in green(?). I am not fully red-green colorblind, but this color scheme is particularly annoying to me especially since the MOS specifically advises against this. Bboppy (talk) 23:07, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 107#Green text color can't be seen by the color-blind (January 2009)

and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 110#An idea: markup for bad examples (September and October 2009)

and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 114#MOS is contradicting itself on accessibility (March 2010).

—Wavelength (talk) 23:27, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

See also Template talk:Tq#Similarity to example font. —sroc 💬 23:45, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I now see that the MOS does not rely on color alone, even though somewhat inconsistent between sections (see MOS:ENDASH and MOS:HYPHEN). Is there a reason why #006400 and #8B0000 are used instead of #00FF00 and #FF0000? Bboppy (talk) 02:30, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Those darker green and red colors look like they were picked to be less garish, easier to read, with good luminance contrast. I have no idea whether that's helpful or not for your kind of color blindness. Let us know if adjusting one of the brightnesses up or down makes them easier to distinguish. Dicklyon (talk) 05:00, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

In my particular case, increasing the saturation would slightly help my ability to distinguish between the colors. But if the change interferes with readers with normal color vision's ability to read the text comfortably, there's really no point in changing the colors since I would still have difficulty regardless of saturation.--Bboppy (talk) 13:23, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

South East London

The name of this region is written in umpteen different ways, such as

South East London
south east London
South-East London
south-east London
southeast London
Southeast London
SouthEast London

The only one that I am confident is wrong is the last. Which should be preferred at Wikipedia? 81.159.107.64 (talk) 01:08, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

See WP:MOS#Compass points.—Wavelength (talk) 01:42, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I should have looked more carefully. 86.160.218.157 (talk) 02:19, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

That doesn't seem very clear on whether South East London (spaced) is correct, though the examples suggest that in British English "South-East London" is preferred to "Southeast London" (if the writer is using it as a proper name). Perhaps "may or may not be hyphenated" should be reworded to be clearer on which of the three alternatives it is intended to cover). --Boson (talk) 13:04, 2 August 2013 (UTC)