Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:27, 12 May 2010

Welcome

Hello, Darkfrog24, and welcome to Misplaced Pages. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} and your question on your user talk page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The Five Pillars of Misplaced Pages
• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! — Chris53516 03:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Signatures

Hi! Please use ~~~~ to sign your comments. Thanks! — Chris53516 03:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for answering my question about human cloning! CameoAppearance 22:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

You are most welcome. Darkfrog24 04:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Prom baby

An editor has nominated Prom baby, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Misplaced Pages is not"). Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Prom baby and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. Jayden54Bot 19:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that the article has been nominated for deletion. Although one contributor mentioned that the term is widespread "throughout the South," I have only found the one source. As such, I feel no need to contest the deletion notice. Any arguments of mine will take the form of improvements to the article or suggestions on the talk page.

What generated this bot notice? While someone did remove the deletion notice, you may wish to note that it was not me. Darkfrog24 21:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Brethren Court

The page has been nominated for deletion, please join the discussion here. Therequiembellishere (talk) 10:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Yarnbus.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Yarnbus.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Misplaced Pages's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Misplaced Pages:Image use policy
• Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. 07:56, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I realize this is a bot, but this is annoying. I've already given a description of the image's copyright issues and asked about it on the image use page. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:18, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

FYI

Please reply on the MOS talk page, if interested. rootology/equality 20:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Update: the MOS page is unprotected, but I strongly advise you to not further any edit warring there. Please review this. Thanks. rootology/equality 21:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

What edit warring? Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:17, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

AN/I

I filed an AN/I against you here. Ilkali (talk) 12:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Now that is an appropriate way to respond when you think someone's doing something wrong. This is much more civilized. Thank you, Ilkali. I feel much better about this whole mess now. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• Can you please use preview instead of continually editing and saving the ANI board? It's distracting -->David Shankbone 18:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Sure. It's more a matter of changing my mind, but I'll take extra care in this case. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, it's just that it's a heavily trafficked board, and continually editing and saving enhances the possibility of edit conflicts. -->David Shankbone 18:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Olive branch

Dear Darkfrog24: It's too bad that we got off to the start that we did with one another. I suspect that we probably agree about many things. For one thing, we are in a small minority that actually cares about punctuation, style, and the like. Finell (Talk) 02:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, in another universe ...we might have been friends. We also seemed to be the only two people who demonstrated an ability to cross what I'll call party lines on the MoS. Don't think I didn't notice when you told Troviatore to express himself differently. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

And I noticed, early on, that when Mchavez said that I was being inconsistent, you responded to him that I was being flexible. I've done some academic editing, worked with pre-digital hot-type professional printers, am acquainted with several style manuals, and really appreciate good typography. I was a very early adopter of using proportionally spaced typefaces and professional typographic conventions (typographic quotation marks and apostrophes, em- and en-dashes, italic instead of underline, non-breaking spaces to avoid awkward line breaks, etc.), when most everyone else was using the latest computers and laser printers to emulate Selectric typewriters. To my eye, especially in a serifed typeface, this”, looks butt ugly, and so does this”. (I might have a different opinion if I originally learned and was surrounded by the other style.) On Misplaced Pages, though, other considerations come into play. Misplaced Pages pages are never going to approach typeset appearance in a browser. The typeface is sans-serif. MOS prescribes straight quotation marks and apostrophes for valid technical reasons. And, when all is said and done, so-called logical quotation really is less ambiguous: if a period comes before a close quotation mark, you know that the period was in the original quotation, and not something added at the end of a sentence fragment. American style is also a bit harder for editors to master, because extraneous commas and periods get tucked inside the close quotation mark, but not semicolons (an apparent inconsistency). Even more fundamentally, I think that a "house style" should remain relatively stable, and this guideline has been around for a very long time, possibly from the start. If the MOS had historically prescribed what you call American quotation mark style, I would not be clamoring for change to so-called logical quotation style. Finell (Talk) 05:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Finell, American punctuation does not create the problems you're describing. It's been a non-issue for centuries. If people want to know how the original material was punctuated, they have to look at the source, regardless of what style was used to quote it. In addition, American style is less hard to master because it is simpler: put periods and commas inside and semicolons and colons outside. (The British are as welcome to their complexities as they are to a U in "color.")

I suspect that the reason this guideline has been around from the start is because a disproportionate number of Misplaced Pages's founders were either professional or amateur programmers. They picked the style that they were used to. However, as more and more non-programmers are taking part in Misplaced Pages, this is becoming less appropriate. As Tony1 put it, "Look around and see how the culture is changing."

The advantage in permitting American and British styles when appropriate and preferring them where preferable is this: It makes Misplaced Pages look professional and legitimate. Even people who don't know all the ins and outs of good punctuation still get a good impression when they see it. If Misplaced Pages were to adopt British and American standards, as it has with spelling, then most readers would think, "Ah, this looks like the real thing. This looks like it didn't get here by accident," because they'd be seeing the same, quality work that they see in the New York Times, Nature, professionally edited magazines and professional academic and literary works. If you ask me, this would be a big step toward getting the public to shake the idea of Misplaced Pages as "that Internet encyclopedia" and start them toward "the encyclopedia." Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Italic dates

Thanks for the good guidance. How do I participate in a useful conversation? I can't find it if its going on. stilltim (talk) 18:33, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

When in doubt, check the page history. The last couple of major contribs were this morning.

You don't have to say anything. If you feel that all useful arguments have already been made, then it might be better if you added only a brief "I agree with so-and-so" or even nothing at all. But I figured that since you specifically were one subject of the discussion, someone should let you know that it was going on. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:41, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Got the MOS, where's the discussion this morning? stilltim (talk) 19:14, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Found it and responded. Many, many thanks stilltim (talk) 20:20, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Chaz Bono, sex and gender

I know that this article is most likely on your watchlist, but I wanted to address you here as well: As I stated on the talk page there, I really did not mean to insult anyone. As someone who understands this topic quite well, I was simply trying to help. It seems that my initial wording somewhat irritated you, but it was a simple explanation in my view. Maybe I should have gone into the thoughts about the brain being one sex while the person's body displays the opposite sex of that, but I was not trying to give a long, detailed lesson and it is not something that is believed to be the case for all transgender individuals.

In any case, I apologize for any offense you feel that I caused. I also appreciate your helping others to understand this topic. Flyer22 (talk) 18:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Accepted, but I wasn't offended enough to remember. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

MoS unprotect?

Hi Darkfrog. Please see the section at bottom of MoS talk. We need to establish stability and reasonable harmony on the talk page, given that there will be the odd dispute. ArbCom is auditing MoS for stability in just over two months, and if we have no history of stability in the absence of the protection measure, they'll probably walk away and say protect it forever.

If you're prepared to be part of an effort to avoid instability on the MoS page, will you add you voice? Tony (talk) 13:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I saw your section there and am preparing a response at the moment.

I don't quite understand what you're getting at with regard to instability. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

I doubt you you would be surprised, but I have replies to you on WP:MOS. All good and sensible and so are you. I disagree with you but I know you are an intelligent person who wants to make it better. I hope you know I do too. SimonTrew (talk) 11:30, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Trew, were you under the impression that you had offended me? Heavens no! I've found you to be nothing but cordial these past few days. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:55, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

images

You summed it up well in your most recent comment. For some reason the microscopic images issue has passed me by. Perhaps this is another issue where WPians can set preferences that blind them to how our readers see the pages. In any case, I've written a proposal here, which I'd appreciate your feedback on. Please note that I'm no expert on images, even though it's plain to me that we have a serious problem in the current MoS text. Tony (talk) 16:39, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Good one. However, you may have worked on my previous update (I kept tinkering). You might consider changing "that" to "which" in the first para (there are a lot of "thats"), and using the wording for the bullets (does it work better?). Tony (talk) 17:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Move to close at MOS

Hi Darkfrog, I think it would be best if you close the discussion yourself. The mechanism at {{Archive top}} would solve the issue at hand and then you can continue to seek answers about flagging the passage in the way you describe. I am afraid otherwise it appears to be devolving into a debate over whether to close. If there is no consensus about the tag in the MOS page, if you close debate and contact an administrator or add to my post at WP:AN#MOS move to close re: WP:LQ that issue can be dealt with separately. I think the real point is to have the MOS page unlocked, and I think no admin has acted on my request because this is not a formal debate like deletion or requested move discussions. Sswonk (talk) 05:32, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for presenting me with an opportunity to ask something: What precisely is a formal closing? Is there something to it other than "okay, this discussion has run its course"? Would it in any way impede other editors from raising the same issues for discussion at a later date?

As for consensus, it seems to me that everyone who has commented so far (LaserBrain/AndyW, yourself, Finell, myself) agrees that the discussion as run its course. The only significant difference of opinion seems to be whether the text should remain in its current form or be reverted to some previous one. Darkfrog24 (talk) 05:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

As I am using the term, "formal closing" involves an end to debate and an administrative decision such as what happens with WP:AFD, WP:CFD and WP:RM. Those all involve a voting process. I have used the {{Archive top}} and {{Archive bottom}} method in the past on MOS pages where things have run their course. Basically it tells latecomers not to bother adding comments or rebutting others, we have moved on. I am suggesting that a third party be contacted regarding the unresolved question about the content of MOS before unlock, so asking that question at WP:AN can't hurt. I may be unavailable after posting this message but will check back here in a few hours. Sswonk (talk) 06:02, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

So, yes, it does do something other than archive the thread. I certainly do not support any measure that tells newcomers that their contributions are not wanted. Is there a note we could post telling them to put their concerns in a new section so that the old one may time out into the archive? Darkfrog24 (talk) 06:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, place the {{Archive top}} tag beneath the headline "Punctuation: Quotation marks: Inside or outside" and place {{Archive bottom}} tag after the last comment of the entire section, currently your response to Finell. Then, below the {{Archive bottom}}, put the message you want to convey in a way similar to: Further comments: The section above has been archived, please create a new topic for any concerns about this subject or the discussion itself. (your signature) . This will end the discussion originated by Mchavez but make very clear that anyone who wants to comment about the guideline, the archived discussion or the disposition of the disputed tag on the MOS page can simply create a new thread. You can do this now and post a request for help about the version and tagging of the main project page LQ section, I suggest asking an admin or using the WP:Third opinion process. I hope that helps. Sswonk (talk) 14:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. This addresses my concerns about archiving the page. Still not sure what you want from a third opinion. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually it isn't anything I want, rather a way for you and Finell to discuss disagreement over your idea of a tag like "Caution: Dangerous waters! Consider discussing even small changes to this section before editing." It might be best to simply run that question by an administrator that you have dealt with before, or ask Finell if he wants to take it to WP:3O. I only suggested that because it seemed that was where you were stuck regarding what happens once the page is unlocked. Rootology (talk · contribs · logs) locked the page but has announced his retirement, maybe you can approach one of the admins from page history that has edited MOS since the lock with questions you have. Sswonk (talk) 15:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

But we're not talking about unlocking the page; we're talking about closing the discussion. The page was not locked because of this discussion; it was locked because of an edit war. The two things are not directly connected.

As for stuck, I don't know that we're stuck. Finell has shown himself more than capable of behaving reasonably when dealt with reasonably. He probably just needs to take a closer look at the proposal. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

(SIIIIIIIIIGH) See, Sswonk? this is why I didn't want to be the one to do this! I would have much preferred to just put the discussion in the archives like Jimp did. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:57, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Sure! Totally not a big deal, either way would have worked. Doing it as you did gives people a day or two to see that the discussion was closed. I've seen it done both ways, and sometimes the process of removing it as was done by Jimp in that diff is controversial. Looked at another way, closing a discussion but keeping it visible gives new folks a heads up that the issue was addressed previously. If you look at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(infoboxes)/Archive_3, I surrounded the discussion with archive tags on August 30 2008 and it stayed that way until someone moved it to Archive_3 nearly 11 months later (see the Archive_3 history). By the way, I ended up wishing I had never started that thread. No harm was done here, so now you know that you could have done what Jimp did. It is up to you to decide if that method will be controversial, I just suggested the less controversial of the two. I think in this case the huge size of the section was a motivating factor, removing it helped clear space for other discussions on that very active page. Absolutely nothing to worry about, Jimp finished a job you started and you can relax. Sswonk (talk) 17:19, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

For future reference, would you be so kind as to tell me how Jimp did it? I checked the page history and couldn't see any indicators. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Jimp checked the number of the last archive, Archive_110 and then started a new page, "Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Archive_111" possibly simply by adding "/Archive_111" to the end of the URL and then clicking the link that appears on the subsequent message page. Click this: to see what I mean. Then, Jimp simply opened the old section you tagged and cut- pasted it to the new page he started and saved both pages. The title needs to be exactly as shown i.e. uppercase "A" Archive followed by underscore and the new archive number to maintain consistency and also because archiving bots look for/create pages with that specific title style, see User:MiszaBot/Archive_HowTo for further details. Jimp knew the way to do it properly so it wouldn't upset the sequence, another reason you can relax. Sswonk (talk) 17:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Darkfrog. Can we remove the dispute tag? Or are you still toying with the notion of inventing a new tag? --Andy Walsh (talk) 17:52, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The dispute has run its course, so it is appropriate to remove the tag. I was not talking about inventing a new tag. I was asking if one already existed. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

There is {{Calm talk}}, but I'm not sure if that's what you're looking for. --Andy Walsh (talk) 18:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I am looking for something that would reduce the chances of another big fight. The best way to do that is to prevent users from going, "Hey, this comma policy is wrong! I'd better fix it" without giving other people a chance to let them know what's going on. It seems that the best way to do that would be to ask users to consider going to the talk page before making even small edits. {{Calm talk}} certainly applies to this case as well. Thank you for showing it to me. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Waaiiiit a second, is this thing designed for talk pages? Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Hm, yeah, but maybe it can be adapted. All of these templates only exist because someone needed one that didn't exist. --Andy Walsh (talk) 19:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Discussions on this subject may escalate into heated debate. Please edit with caution and try to keep a cool head on the talk page. See also: Misplaced Pages:Etiquette.

What do you think of this, then? Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks good to me. --Andy Walsh (talk) 19:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the instructions, Andy. I do like learning new things. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Film series numbering controversy

You may like to comment here: Talk:Film_series#Requested_move - Robsinden (talk) 14:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Possessives frazzle

Hi Darkfrog. Noetica is being a cranky old man. You can safely ignore his grumpiness, which is less than skin-deep, I think. I've started a new section where people can try to sort out the text amicably. Can we try to harmonise/compromise/whatever on this matter? It's here. Tony (talk) 14:46, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, not taking Noetica personally. I don't think he noticed that I was agreeing with his general point, though. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:19, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Invitation

WikiProject Zoroastrianism We invite you to join WikiProject Zoroastrianism. There you can also find and coordinate with users who are trying to improve Zoroastrianism related articles. If you would like to get involved, just visit the other participants or inquire at the project's talk page. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me or other members.

Your note

Okay, fair enough, will do. :) SlimVirgin 22:18, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

THANK YOU. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Amongst

I interpret this as your desire to take out that "controversial vocabulary" section in its entirety. That would be my second choice. If this is what you really want please spell out the proposal in a separate subsection, so we have some clear options to !vote on (first/second/... choice ArbComy style). The current mode of threaded discussion does not look like will lead to any obvious consensus. Thanks, Pcap ping 13:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Nope. Actually voting on your proposal there. I agree that our disorganized discussions are not as effective as they could be, but that, too, is a separate issue. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:26, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Change in lead of the Gender article, and a note about the Biology of gender article

With my change in the lead, I hope that you are pleased with it. When noting "biological and behavioral differences," though, I was unsure of whether to link to Biology of gender or Sexual dimorphism. I mean, the Biology of gender article focuses on humans...and the Sexual dimorphism article focuses more on the form/shape of different species than psychological/social behavior of different sexes. I, as the article currently shows, though, went with linking to Biology of gender. Flyer22 (talk) 21:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

...can't we link to both? Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:28, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I also thought about doing both, but that would separate "biological and behavioral differences" from being one link. The problem I have with that? Well, besides no longer having just one (and simple) link, with the Biology of gender article being pipe-linked as "biological" and the Sexual dimorphism article pipe-linked as "behavior," not only does it look like we are simply linking to the Biology and Behavior articles...but the Sexual dimprphism article does not significantly focus on behavior (as I stated before, it is more about the form/shape). If you mean some other way of doing it, then I am open to that. Flyer22 (talk) 22:47, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Heh heh. I think I've fixed it just now. Take a look. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:48, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Weirdest thing. The italics won't take. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:51, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

LOL. Your new lead is fine. Though I might tweak it further. I still feel that we should start off naming that it has a range of definitions first, though. If we do, we could also mention the word genetics in addition to biology. Also, the reason I started off using the World Health Organization (WHO) reference after specifying that the term has a range of definitions is due WHO being seen as an authorative source, and I have seen many editors here at Misplaced Pages state that authorative sources should go first. But I am fine with leaving the WHO mention where you put it. Flyer22 (talk) 23:05, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

All other things being equal, yes, but we should probably introduce the idea that the word has many definitions and then mention sociology. Otherwise it looks like the WHO's definition is unique rather than shared among the social sciences. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:16, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

By noting that the term has a range of definitions first, I was thinking more of specifying the different ranges right off the bat and then transitioning from that into naming what these ranges are more than I was thinking about being fair (which is what I did). But your changing it to "commonly refers" covers the equal bit, I feel. I mean, the use of "gender" as "the set of characteristics that humans perceive as distinguishing between male and female entities, extending from one's biological sex to, in humans, one's social role or gender identity" is the common usage. I used the common (and traditional) usage of "sexual intercourse" first with the Sexual intercourse article. But do you feel that the paragraph about scientific research should stay last? It might be better placed in the middle. Flyer22 (talk) 23:20, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, it has been great working with you on this. I like this new lead better than the one that was there before I started working on it today, that's for sure. Good job. Flyer22 (talk) 23:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I separated out the biological paragraph because it deals with the concept of gender rather than the definitions of the term. A fine distinction, I'll grant. I think it does well last, but it could go elsewhere if we reorganize. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

If you are not already aware of the new changes in the lead, you may want to participate in this discussion on my talk page: User talk:Flyer22#Gender. Flyer22 (talk) 03:31, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Darkfrog, I am going to need your help in this discussion regarding the lead. This recent editor to drastically change the lead (Masculinity), though I reverted, can be difficult to work with, and is especially hostile towards what he considers "Western definitions" of things. I would greatly appreciate you weighing in on this discussion when you can. Flyer22 (talk) 18:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Talk:New Moon (2009 film)#WP:Logical quotation

Hey, Darkfrog. Would you not mind weighing in on the above linked discussion? Flyer22 (talk) 22:58, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Not in the slightest. You might want to heads-up Finell or Pi Zero to make sure that the other side is represented. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:20, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Do you still feel that I should? Or just leave the discussion where it is? Flyer22 (talk) 21:49, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I went ahead and alerted Finell. Flyer22 (talk) 22:21, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Better Finell than one of the crazy ones, right? Finell at least knows how to be civil. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:21, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Punctuation

Hi, Darkfrog. Regarding what you said here: if I were the slightest bit optimistic, I'd say the discussion really should be at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style. I've finally come to terms—for the most part—with punctuating the WP way, but I'm bothered by the inconsistency of it: if periods or commas are to be placed after the quotation marks (aka inverted commas), then shouldn't those quotation marks be single ones, not double? (Sorry for butting into a discussion about an article I've never even read, btw.) Rivertorch (talk) 17:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

You're not butting in; you're asking a question. The issue of single vs. double quotation marks on Misplaced Pages is separate from the American vs. British/"logical" punctuation matter. Unlike with banning American punctuation, there was a logical reason for adopting double quotation marks. I'm told that single quotation marks mess with search features. That being the case, the moment the technology advances to the point at which it is no longer an issue—as is the case with some newer web browsers—then the ban should be lifted and articles written in British English should be permitted to use single or double quotation marks, so long as they are consistent. (Because American English does not consider single marks to be correct, they should not be permitted in articles written in American English.)

As to whether the discussion should take place on a user page, article discussion page or WT: MoS, the answer is that if it is about what to write in one specific article, then it should be on that article's talk page. If it is about the rule itself, then it should be on WT: MoS. In my opinion, there should be discussions on both WT: MoS (and there is) and on the tea ceremony article discussion page—the people who are working on that article may have opinions on the matter. If the discussion takes place on a user's page, then that user could be accused, inaccurately, of making controversial edits without discussing them first. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. Interesting about the technical reason for the double quotation marks. I hadn't heard that before, so thanks.

Concerning the larger topic of WP punctuation, there's yet another potentially relevant issue, this one having to do with on-screen typography: in some instances, at least, some think that readability is enhanced when the period or comma (especially the latter) comes after the quotation marks when rendered in a sans-serif font:

"holistic", "simulated", and "endearing".

looks neater than

"holistic," "simulated," and "endearing."

perhaps because of the way the characters are kerned. If you try that off-wiki in a serif font, the opposite is true, especially when it's printed out.

You're quite right about the proper venues for discussions. I have no stake or particular interest in the article in question but am always intrigued when matters of punctuation arise around here. Rivertorch (talk) 06:14, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

No, it doesn't look neater. The British punctuation actually looks quite sloppy. The aesthetic aspect is probably an eye-of-the-beholder matter. Misplaced Pages should do what is correct rather than what some people think looks better. Some people might think that spelling "harbor" as "harbour" looks funny, but if it's a British English article, then that's the way to do it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:07, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)None of this matters. The MoS does not call for logical quotation because it "looks better" (a subjective artsy-fartsy notion of no relevance here); nor because it is "more intuitive" (which it almost certainly is for a majority of people, but this too is subjective, and people with a really, really deep-seated preference for the largely American typesetter's quotation style find that more intuitive, as someone keeps browbeating into us as if we didn't already understand this, several years ago; nor because it is "simpler" or "easier" (typing ". when warranted is no in any way less or more complicated that ."; actually the decision is less simple, because in logical quotation the punctuation is placed inside or outside for a reason that requires thinking – because it actually belongs there – not always inside regardless of what the results of doing that might be). We use logical quotation here for a simple, singular, factual, objective reason: It preserves quotations intact, without falsely inserting punctuation into them that wasn't there in the original (or leaving the reader to wonder whether this has been done). Please, all of you, stop mischaracterizing the nature of the debate. The reason for the choice is grounded in WP:V and WP:NOR. Going with typesetters' quotation (there is no "American" or "British" quotation as has already been proven in these recurring debates - there are US publications that use logical quotation and UK ones that use typesetter's) has no basis but subjective WP:ILIKEIT notions as bases. Being used to something does not make it "better" or "right", nor "appropriate for this encyclopedia". — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(ل)ˀ Contribs. 17:03, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that what looks better should not be high on our list of considerations. It's an eye of the beholder thing.

While there are U.S. publications that use British or LQ and there are British publications that use American punctuation or LQ, this doesn't mean that the American style isn't American and the British style isn't British. If a town in New Jersey has the word "TOWN CENTRE" spelled out on its sign, that doesn't make the town British. It just means that the signmakers decided to use a British form.

If the piece of writing is in American English, then no, the comma does not belong inside the quotation marks. I realize that a lot of people on Misplaced Pages just don't like that, but that isn't a good enough reason to ban a long-standing punctuation practice.

I realize that you prefer LQ and that there is a Misplaced Pages consensus to prefer LQ, but the FAQ should not make false claims about what the different styles actually do. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:13, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

3RR

Hi, you seem to have violated 3RR on that page. Would you mind reverting yourself, please? SlimVirgin 06:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

For now, if you like. I found a new source. The 15th edition of the Chicago MoS, as you stipulated. Darkfrog24 (talk) 06:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for reverting yourself. SlimVirgin 06:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome. However, when the issue is the source and not the wording, I do not believe that finding a new source constitutes 3RR. Darkfrog24 (talk) 06:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

You've been continually undoing my edits. Any revert, in whole or in part, for whatever reason (apart from vandalism and BLP) counts toward 3RR. SlimVirgin 06:42, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

And you've been undoing mine. We've also been talking it out on the WT like reasonable people.

Do you honestly believe that it isn't American or is this just a super-tough way of seeing that the fact of its being so is less assailable? On the flip side, the British system has its origins in Britain and is used by the overwhelming number of British writers. Calling it "British" seems like a given. Darkfrog24 (talk) 06:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I've been trying to restore the edits I made this evening, and have been expanding and adding sources, or trying to -- and you've been reverting me. I don't believe it is American, no. It is used by British journalists and British novelists and fiction writers which, let's face it, is jointly most of what most people read. I'm British and British-educated, school and university, and I've always used it. I don't even know how to use logical punctuation. You seem to be the only one who wants to create a rigid nationalist distinction, and I can't see what purpose it serves.

Also, I have to say it's not good form to be making so many edits to the MoS talk page (you're the 4th biggest contributor with 845 edits since just May last year) and yet not to have read the key style books. That's bound to cause confusion. This is why I'd like us all (me too) to start making source-based edits only, and only to use the terms that the sources themselves mostly use. That way, the MoS talk page will be less confusing for its readers, now and in the future. SlimVirgin 06:57, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I am not creating the distinction between British and American practices. It was there before I was even born. The Chicago MoS and dozens of lesser guides call them "American" and "British." I realize that WP:COMMONNAME refers to article titles, but the spirit's the same. The article should at least include the names that people actually use for this stuff.

I said that I didn't have the book in front of me, Slim. Don't assume more than that.

I do think that making source-based edits to the MoS would improve things. However, abbreviations are appropriate for the talk page. Darkfrog24 (talk) 07:04, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

No, they mostly don't call them British and American. They note that sometimes others do. Anyway, look, the point is you're causing tremendous confusion, making up terms, making up differences between styles that don't exist. Please go to a library and borrow the books. Or go to Amazon where it's sometimes possible to search them. They all say more or less the same thing. Any differences are the normal differences you find between style guides; they don't signal that different systems are being used. SlimVirgin 07:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Slim, if one system is American, even in general, and the other is British, even in general, then how am I "making things up" by saying so? You ought to be saying that Chicago was making things up. Darkfrog24 (talk) 07:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

You are saying there are three styles: LQ, BQ, and traditional. There are not. There is logical punctuation, used in the UK (at least); and there is traditional punctuation, used in the UK, the U.S., and Canada (at least). SlimVirgin 07:18, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

No that is not what I am saying.

There is an American punctuation style (puts periods and commas inside the quotation marks most of the time). There is a British punctuation style (puts them inside or outside depending on where they apply). There may also be a third style, called "logical quotation," which treats text like collections of literal strings. I originally thought that British and "logical" were two different names for the same system. But then I hit the MoS talk page and got "No no no. It's not the same. It's not the same! Also, American punctuation is stupid and bad." So I looked around at this source and that source and I dug and dug and dug and found British English guides tended to tell people to put colons and semicolons outside quotation marks, which Misplaced Pages's WP:LQ did not. They acknowledged words-as-words and short-form work titles as places where the punctuation belonged outside, which WP:LQ did not. I found a page or two in which computer programmers talked about literal strings and their frustration with American standard punctuation. All this together led me to believe that yes, however vehemently anti-American-punctuation the people who'd first told me about it had been, their assertion that LQ and British standard forms were two different systems did seem to be correct.

However, your recent comments on the MoS talk page got me thinking that I should reevaluate that conclusion, that perhaps the differences between WP:LQ and British style guides were the result of oversimplification rather than actual differences in practice.

What seems to be the case to me now is that "logical punctuation" and "typographic punctuation" are "the act of placing periods and commas according to their original position in the source" and "the act of placing periods and commas inside" and that British style and American style are two sets of instructions that tend to include these actions. Because American English standards make exceptions for web entries, etc., they are not exactly the same as TP. Darkfrog24 (talk) 07:34, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Manual of Style discussion

I've moved the MOS structure discussion to Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Structure.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 21:25, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Sexual intercourse article

I understand your addition. I believe the original addition was trying to say it is all still sex. For example, the terms "anal sex" and "oral sex" still have the word "sex" in them (whether some people consider them to be sexual intercourse or not). I know people (heterosexual and homosexual) who don't consider those two acts to be sexual intercourse but they still consider them "sex." The original entry was trying to say that the term "sex," in the context of sexual intimacy, does not always mean the same thing as the term sexual intercourse in its usual sense. Either way, I get your addition, since plenty of people would say neither is "real sex". I tweaked it, though. Flyer22 (talk) 21:17, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

What that section ought to say is that that specific expert considers "sex" to mean any kind of sexual contact, in her case both intercourse and outercourse, because that is all that the source says. I find that it looks neater and clearer now. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:42, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Mind weighing in on this discussion? Flyer22 (talk) 18:35, 3 May 2010 (UTC)