Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:25, 26 June 2013

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

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Shortcut WT:MOS

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

Template:MOS/R

For a list of suggested abbreviations for referring to style guides, see this page.

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

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

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

Vertical space, specifically in the "footer"

There are one or two editors who have devoted at least a few hundred separate edits to the reduction of vertical space in articles, often at the end of the article, between the text of the last section (external links, references) and usually the first navbox template (but sometime just above other "footer" elements like the bottom of the page itself, category or other tags like persondata). The type of vertical spacing removed is most often a simple double blank line, but other kinds like {{-}}, <br> and variations, or a double blank like containing one HTML comment are also among the constructs eliminated. Does the MOS make any recommendations in this regard? I've searched the archives, but couldn't find anything conclusive... 86.121.18.17 (talk) 20:37, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Discussion about previous discussions

This RfC gained consensus that the blank space you are talking about (below the last link of ==External links==, for example) is not to be added. Note that bots do remove the blank space you are talking about so adding spacing would be oppositional and disruptive.Curb Chain (talk) 08:09, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't quite see the consensus there, well, for anything. You certainly supported your own proposal. User:SMcCandlish opposed adding it to the MOS ans so did User:Apteva although the latter seemed to like the whitespace, but wanted it added via the nav templates themselves. (Is this even feasible?) User:Victor Yus also preferred the visuals with whitespace; he also opposed your article edits removing the spaces. User:Izno opposed your proposed addition to MOS but he also opposed the "mass addition of spacing". User:Beyond My Ken supported adding them manually at least to some articles. User:Rich Farmbrough and User:Agnosticaphid did not have a clear opinion on the visuals, but agreed with you that site-wide solution is desirable. Rich even said a site-wide solution was already introduced by CSS, but even you, Curb Chain, seem to think no such thing is currently in place. That doesn't read like much of a consensus to me. Some issues were confounded, so it's probably best to separate them. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 11:30, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Current MOS rules

WP:ORDER (version of 14:07, 2 June 2013) treats navigation templates and persondata sections and category sets and stub templates as sections. MOS:HEAD (version of 20:37, 16 June 2013) says "Include one blank line above the heading, and optionally one blank line below it, for readability in the edit window." These entities lack headings in the usual sense, so a blank line would be placed immediately above the border or content of any one of them.

—Wavelength (talk) 14:56, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, since they have no heading, it's also wikilegal to have, for example:

 Last sentence of the article.
 <!-- mandatory blank line before the nonexistent heading -->
 <!-- no real heading (zero-length) --><!-- optional blank line after the nonexistent heading -->
 {{some nav template}}

That gives two separating blank lines, the 2nd one being optional, but MOS-valid.86.121.18.17 (talk) 20:29, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Also I'm not sure if those rules imply anything about

 Last sentence of the article.
 {{-}}
 <!-- mandatory blank line before the nonexistent heading -->
 <!-- no real heading (zero-length) -->{{some nav template}}

because {{-}} is not a blank line in code-editing mode. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 20:49, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm suprised that you would make the claim that "one or two editors" make these edits. They are completely covered by MOS, so I'm not surprised that I'm only aware of one of two editors that do add these whitespaces: One admits that he has bad eyesight, the other only ever mention "better looks" for a reason.

• First and formost: "Modifications in font size, blank space, and color are an issue for the Misplaced Pages site-wide style sheet, and should be reserved for special cases only." - That alone makes it clear that any ad-hoc style changes should be avoided.
• Later on, the MOS explicitly forbids exactly these comments: "Check that your invisible comment does not inadvertently change the formatting, for example by introducing white space in read mode."
• There is also Help:Whitespace: "Comments in the wikicode added by can contribute to whitespace. Format the comment to avoid this, "
• Last, Help:Hidden text makes exactly the same point: "Inappropriate uses for hidden text Creating whitespace."

The first point is the most important. While the other three might go either way, the first point can't really be any different: The alternative would be that every article would constantly be battled for formatting, with devastating effects (among others) to WP:ACCESS and mobile devices.

There is no other way, if you want to change the space, go change the style sheet. --91.10.19.240 (talk) 19:16, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that the intent of the first sentence is two prohibit two blank lines in wiki code anywhere. The context with fonts and colors seems to be about changing the letterspacing of fonts using <span> etc. If the intended reading of that rule is to prohibit two blank lines of wiki code, then the prohibition needs to be stated explicitly, because it's far too tenuous of an inference. As for the rules about the comments, they don't prohibit adding a comment to a double-blank line if the double blank line is intentional. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 21:19, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

You are far too literal in your understanding of style sheets. Every visual aspect of a web page should be handled by style sheets. In many ways, if it could be done with a style sheet, it should be done with a style sheet. This is not only true for Misplaced Pages, it's true for every web page.

If you miss an explicit prohibition of "two blank lines of wiki code", would you not also miss an explicit prohibition of "three blank lines of wiki code"? What about four?

I already mentioned the alternative: If visual aspects of the article would be subject to ad-hoc changes in HTML, many articles would suffer from constant back-and-forth between various ways to manage white space. WP:ACCESS would suffer, as would mobile devices.

Please state a few advantages of dealing with this issue in other ways than in the style sheet. --91.10.34.128 (talk) 21:44, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I wondered about your use of intentional. It turns out that BMK POV-pushed his view of thing into the MOS. Not for the first time, and he was told after the first time that he shouldn't do it. --91.10.34.128 (talk) 21:51, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Technical question

Is there a feasible, site-wide solution by which the amount of spacing above the first nav-box can be set? (Keep in mind that navboxes can be part of a stack.) 86.121.18.17 (talk) 11:30, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

We already have a site-wide CSS rule that goes

ol + table.navbox, ul + table.navbox { margin-top: 0.5em; }

- what this says is "when a navbox follows either a numbered list or a bulleted list, make sure there is at least 0.5em of space between the list and the navbox". That 0.5em could be increased to a larger value. If the problem only shows when a navbox follows some other structure, we could broaden the selectors to cover other elements besides ol and ul which might precede the navbox. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:16, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Does that actually do anything? I don't see any vertical spacing difference between and . 86.121.18.17 (talk) 13:43, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually, looking very carefully, I observed the opposite effect: the actual list seems to have one or two pixels less space in Firefox. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 13:47, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Your first example doesn't use a list, this is true; but HTMLTidy has wrapped the word "something" in a <p>...</p> element, which has a bottom margin of 6px. If you have Firefox version 21 (not FF v 19, I'm not sure about FF v 20) you can verify these figures by using the "Inspect element" feature: right-click on the word "something", select "Inspect Element (Q)", and at bottom right, click the "Box Model tab. That produces a series of nested rectangles, with their dimensions. In the centre there will be the space allocated to the word "something" - for me it's 1083x19, although the first figure will differ with various monitor sizes and resolutions. Below that is a zero, this is the padding-bottom:; directly below that is a 6, this is the margin-bottom:. Next, in the box at lower left, click on the row directly below the </p> - this should be <table class="navbox" style="border-spacing:0;" cellspacing="0"> - and observe that the box model now shows "auto" as the value for margin-top:.

Now switch to your second example, and repeat the exercise: you should find that the </li> has a bottom margin of 1 and the <table> has a top margin of 5. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:12, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure I understand you, but I've tried in IE 10 as well, with the same result. So the extra CSS spacing, even if it is working as intended code-wise, does not add any extra spacing from the user's perspective; the spacing looks the same as after a normal paragraph (because a <p>...</p> paragraph has some vertical spacing after it, but a list element does not have any, so the "+" space between a list element and a navbox just compensates for that lack of trailing space, minus a pixel or so). 86.121.18.17 (talk) 20:06, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

OK, it can be demonstrated, but you'll need to register an account. When you are logged in, go to Special:MyPage/common.css and add the following line:

ol + table.navbox, ul + table.navbox { margin-top: 5em; }

- it's just like the earlier example except that is specifies a much deeper gap, so that you can see the effect. Having saved that, view your two examples from before - the one without the bullet should be unchanged, the one with the bullet should show a gap ten times as deep as previous. Of course, ten times the size is somewhat in excess of what people will really want, but it demonstrates that it can be done. The gap may be set to any value that is legal for a length in CSS. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:39, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Esthetic question

How much extra space should there be above the first navbox? It seems the main choices here are "none" and "one extra blank line", although if a more fine-grained approach is technically feasible, by all means specify in your favorite typographic units. (By the general MOS rule, if there is no site-wide consensus on how much, it will "defer to the style used by the first major contributor" in any given article.) 86.121.18.17 (talk) 11:40, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Here's my opinion on this. If you look at Edgewood Arsenal experiments#External links you see that most vertical space is between the last actual paragraph and the "See also" section. There is a bit less vertical space between the "See also" and "References", probably because the list elements don't have space after, whereas the paragraph element does (as discussed with Redrose64 above). There is slightly more space after the multi-column References list. The least vertical space of all is between the "External links" list elements and navboxes! This makes the navboxes look as is they are part of the last section (whichever that may happen to be), rather than be a section of their own. So, I think the CSS spacing above navboxes should be increased to make it look like the spacing between the paragraph element and the heading element. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 23:43, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

As another comparison, if you look at The Japan Times#External links, an article with no navboxes, there is considerably more space after the last EL element when it's followed by just the categories box. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 02:05, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

That space is not due to the bulleted list of external links, nor to any part of the article text. The category box (which should be present in every article - if it isn't, give the article an {{uncategorised}}) has class=catlinks which includes the styling margin-top: 1em;. You'll find a gap of similar size above the category box in articles with navboxes, such as Didcot Parkway railway station. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:52, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't saying that the list was causing the extra space. But I did find the more generous space above the category box more pleasing. Since that one is 1em, I suggest that the CSS "plus space" between list elements and navboxes also be increased to 1em (from the current value of 0.5em). 86.121.18.17 (talk) 16:06, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

As one of the primary editors who have argued for the need for visual space separating navboxes from the text of the final hierarchical section (usually "External links"), I do not think that it's necessary to have a full blank line there -- I'd be happy with, say, the equivalent of half a line. The only reason I use a full line is that it's the only way I know of to provide the visual separation that the system provides (for instance) to every hierarchical section to set them off from the text above. Not being familiar with the coding of these things, I don't know how much space is provided for each new section, but whatever it is should be sufficient to set off the navboxes from the text above and dissipate the visual crowding that results if there is no space. The navboxes are, in effect, a new section without a header (and attempts by other editors to add a header to them have been consistently rejected), and they need the same kind of spacing that any other new section is given. Because navboxes are a relatively new addition, and dealing with them has been something of an afterthought, that spacing has never been integrated into the system, but I'm pleased to hear that it is technically possible to do so, and urge that it be adopted. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:54, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

At least two people told you at more than on occasion that there are better ways to add white space - you ignored it.

At any rate, I'm glad that you now acknowledge the existence of style sheets. Redrose64 explains in #Technical question how you use a personal style sheet. If you experiment with the values given (and remove the additional white lines), you should be able to provide valuable feedback to whomever is responsible for the style sheet.

Any change is apparently made to one of these, so that's where the discussion about details should happen. --79.223.18.156 (talk) 18:47, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm ignoring your personalization of issues with Beyond, 79.223.18.156. I will reply to your last point however, as I'm hatting this: that's a help page with practically zero discussion on its talk page. If discussion about global CSS changes needs to be held/solicited someplace else, that help page doesn't look like it's the right place. I did leave a note on WP:VPT pointing to this page when this thread got started. Anyway, if you think another venue is the right place, you should drop a pointer to this discussion over there. I take it you have no opinion on the amount of CSS spacing, 79.223.18.156. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 21:39, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer, I wasn't sure about the best location to address this.

I have an opinion about the amount of spacing, but it would be distracting right now. --91.10.34.128 (talk) 22:25, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

You should maybe also kick the habit. --79.223.18.156 (talk) 18:55, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

And perhaps you should edit under your account name, and not edit stealthily as an IP to avoid scrutiny of your behavior, which is a violarion of WP:SOCK – a policy – whereas nothing that I've done is a violation of any policy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:06, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

So instead of saying anything in your favour, you immediately switch to personal attacks. This is not a war, A "good offense" is not the "best defense". --91.10.2.76 (talk) 17:52, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Contiguous vs. continental United States

Has there been any discussion on what term to use to refer to the contiguous United States?? "Continental" literally includes Alaska, so I suggest we use "contiguous". Any disagreements?? Georgia guy (talk) 18:27, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

It is more of a vocabulary question than a style question. But yes... "Contiguous" is the correct term when referring to the "Lower 48 States" that directly boarder on other States... while "Continental" is used when including Alaska, but not Hawaii. Blueboar (talk) 18:55, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

While it is in some sense technically correct, prepare to be misunderstood if you use the term "continental United States" to include Alaska. My understanding is that that particular usage is mostly found in Alaska. That's not to say you can't use it, but make sure you explain it. --Trovatore (talk) 21:40, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Regarding MOS:LQ

I am seeking clarification regarding the proper method for including/excluding punctuation in quoted material. For examples:

• "Lindsay Planer of Allmusic describes the song as a 'scathing rocker' in which lyrically Harrison 'forgoes his trademark arid wit for a decidedly more acerbic and direct approach'."

• "Leng praises the performance of all the musicians on the recording, particularly Keltner, and describes it as 'one of Harrison's most accomplished pieces'."

While both of the terminal punctuation points are included in the quoted material, User:Stfg has recently informed me that these periods should be placed outside the quote marks. What is the best practice? In the 16th edition of CMOS, section 6.9: Punctuation in relation to closing quotations marks, it states, "Periods and commas precede closing quotation marks, whether double or single ... This is a traditional style, in use well before the first edition of this manual (1906)."(p.309) Also, CMOS gives this example: "Growing up, we always preferred to 'bear those ills we have.' 'Thus conscience does make cowards of us all,' she replied."(p.309) In the example they include both the comma and the terminal punctuation point inside the quote marks. Any thoughts? GabeMc 23:25, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

The discussion we had about it on my talk page is here, where difficulties in the wording of MOS:LQ are described. I'd welcome clarification too. --Stfg (talk) 23:36, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Don't you mean to say: "I'd also welcome clarification"? GabeMc 05:03, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

• From New Hart's Rules (Oxford University Press, 2005): "In US practice, commas and full points are set inside the closing quotation mark regardless of whether they are part of the quoted material ... This style is also followed in much of British fiction and journalism."(p.155) GabeMc 00:13, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
• From Fowler's Modern English Usage (Oxford University Press, 2004): "All signs of punctuation used with words in quotation marks must be placed according to sense. If an extract ends with a point ... let that point be included before the closing quotation mark; but not otherwise."(p.646) GabeMc 00:24, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
• From The Cambridge Guide to English Usage (Cambridge University Press, 2004): "In American style ... always goes inside the quotes, as also for most Canadian editors ... The North American practice (put it inside) is still the easiest to apply".(p.455) GabeMc 00:32, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
• From The Economist Style Guide (online): "For the relative placing of quotation marks and punctuation, follow Hart's rules. Thus, if an extract ends with a full stop or question-mark, put the punctuation before the closing inverted commas." GabeMc 00:36, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
• From The Times Style and Usage Guide (Time Books, 2003): "Punctuation marks go inside the inverted commas if they relate to the words quoted".(p.139) GabeMc 00:43, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
• From The New York Times Manual of Style and Usage (Three Rivers Press, 1999): "Periods and commas, in American usage, always go inside the closing quotation marks, regardless of grammatical logic."(p.280) GabeMc 00:48, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
• From The Associated Press Stylebook (Basic Books, 2011): "Placement with other punctuation: Follow these long-established printers' rules: —The period and the comma always go within the quotation marks."(p.381) GabeMc 00:55, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
• From the MLA Handbook (7th edition, 2009): "By convention, commas and periods that directly follow quotations go inside the closing quotation marks."(p.103) GabeMc 01:27, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
• From The UPI Style Book & Guide to Newswriting (Martin, Cook, 2004): "The period and the comma always go within the quotation marks."(p.208) GabeMc 01:51, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

"The North American practice (put it inside) is still the easiest to apply"—I don't understand why it's "the easiest". This list demonstrates that it's not really a trans-Atlantic issue. And some US academic journals, I believe, insist the other way round. Are the double quotes from your initial examples, or did you insert them for the purpose of this thread? Tony (talk) 00:53, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Tony, I'm not sure what you mean. I quoted several style guides and so I put the quoted material inside double quotes. This thread isn't about whether or not we should use single or double inverted commas, its about whether or not commas and periods should be placed inside quoted material when they appear there in the original source. GabeMc 00:59, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

You have confused your point by requoting the material. Here are you two pieces and my reactions:

• Lindsay Planer of Allmusic describes the song as a "scathing rocker" in which lyrically Harrison "forgoes his trademark arid wit for a decidedly more acerbic and direct approach".

I'd put the period back inside, since the quote seems to be clearly a sentence ending there.

• Leng praises the performance of all the musicians on the recording, particularly Keltner, and describes it as "one of Harrison's most accomplished pieces".

I'd leave that one outside, since the material quoted is just a noun phrase, even if it was originally at the end of a sentence. Dicklyon (talk) 00:56, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Tony, re your above comment: "I don't understand why it's 'the easiest'." See Dicklyon's above comments. If placement is situational, then the rules are inherently more complex. This thread is some proof of that, since Dicklyon and Stfg obviously do not agree and since Stfg reverted me under the assumption that he was correct and that I wasn't. So how could we expect newer editors to understand the distinction if two of our finest veterans cannot agree? Hence, it would be simpler/easier to just follow the advice from the UK and US style guides, IMO. GabeMc 01:11, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, principals that require thought are in some sense less "easy". But applying thought come naturally to some; it's not hard. Where people disagree on which is most logical, it probably doesn't matter much. Dicklyon (talk) 02:39, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm concerned about inserting punctuation that isn't there in the original that is being quoted; and the disjuncture between everyone's treatment (of parenthetical wording), and "of quoted material." I have also seen sentence-level commas inserted into ''an italicised portion,'' which is a bit weird, isn't it? Tony (talk) 02:56, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

As I understand the principle ;p of LQ, it’s to prevent a false inference that a stop comes from the source text. I don’t think it demands that they always be reproduced: whether or not to include them, at least where the quotation comprises less than a full sentence, should be a matter for the writer’s discretion. I read Fowler’s “according to sense” above as referring not only to preservation of the original meaning, but also to the manner in which the quotation is integrated with the framing sentence.—Odysseus1479 02:58, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Please see my reference—Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Archive 140#Glaring grammar error in a policy here (WP:LQ) (May 2013)—to comments by Noetica in February 2010 (Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Archive 113#Noetica's advice).

—Wavelength (talk) 03:05, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I think the usage of the so-called "American Style" and "British style" for quoted items depends on whether or not the quoted material is a full sentence. If the quoted material is a full sentence, then the punctuation goes before the last quotation mark. If the quoted material is not a full sentence, punctuation goes after the last quotation mark. That way, "American Style" can be for full-sentence quotes, and "British Style" for non-full-sentence quotes.

Why was it even established that, in the "American style", punctuation has to go before the last quotation mark every time, regardless of whether the quote is a full sentence or just a fragment? Jim856796 (talk) 20:50, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

The usual story is that it has something to do with not breaking small pieces of movable type. I have never really understood why it was supposed to help, and the story may be nonsense for all I know, but it is at least the story one hears. --Trovatore (talk) 20:57, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, as for example in the alt.usage.english FAQ (although sometimes it’s not breakage but movement that’s said to be the problem). The only reason given by Fowler for what he calls the “conventional” style (which he didn’t favour) is “on the ground that this has a more pleasing appearance” (second ed. Gowers). Some stronger language of his, probably from the first edition, is quoted on that FAQ page.—Odysseus1479 23:33, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

The history of American-style quotation and punctuation rules is as described but not really relevant anymore. I prefer a more logicial approach, in which sentences that are entirely in quotes have their punctuation similarly enclosed. Similarly, if punctuation "belongs" to the quoted text then it should be quoted. That being said, I disagree with Dicklyon's analysis of the first example; since the quoted text is a sentence fragment then the period logically belongs outside the quotes to end the entire sentence (and not just the quoted material). In practice, I almost always leave the period outside when quoting a sentence fragment but that's a personal preference. As to why the American rules are "easier", well I guess that's because it makes arguments such as mine with Dicklyon moot. :-) Peace, Dusty|💬|You can help! 15:41, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps the solution is to place the disputed marks above one another, thus: This style is "easier." Or perhaps not – what would editors do without such disputes to occupy their time? :-) (Anyway it probably doesn't work in all browsers.) Peter coxhead (talk) 16:13, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I wish there were an easy & reliable way to do that for decimal points and DMS/HMS symbols, which are usually typeset that way.—Odysseus1479 08:30, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

The current rule on Misplaced Pages is use the British rules in all articles, even ones otherwise written in American English. This rule shouldn't be in place because it flat-out requires incorrect punctuation, but it is in place. Here's how to use it:

Misplaced Pages's required practice: Because you are quoting complete sentences, place the periods according to sense. That would be outside the single quotes but inside the double quotes, as Dicklyon describes.

But your actual question was best practice. Best practice would be replacing WP:LQ and using an ENGVAR-based rule in which, if the article were written in a national variety of English that follows American practice, to put the periods inside both the single and double quotation marks.

As for preventing false inferences, think about this: Can you name one time, on Misplaced Pages or off, when you've ever witnessed or heard of anyone getting confused or making a mistake because of American English punctuation? It's even less often than someone thinking that "centre" is pronounced "sen-treh." In the absence of any difference in performance, "this is more logical" boils down to "I happen to like this more." It's perfectly valid to have personal preferences, as Dusty puts it, but we shouldn't base rules on them. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:29, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't need to be complicated at all. The question should be simply: is the punctuation part of the quoted material, or not? If it is, it belongs inside the quotes; if not, it goes outside. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:56, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Another way of thinking about it is that . (for example) goes exactly where ? or ! would go. Did he say "No"? → He said "No". She said "Why should I do it?" → She said "I should do it."

(However, I still believe that articles written in American English should be consistent and use what is clearly standard American punctuation.) Peter coxhead (talk) 19:13, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't know about that example, PC. "No" can be a complete sentence, and that would place the period inside the quotation marks under British rules. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:15, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Sure. The point is that when the placement of . is determined by the same considerations as the placement of ? or ! there are the same choices: He said "No"! (surprise at what he said) or He said "No!" (he spoke forcefully). Type setters' quotation makes it simpler for . and , but doesn't affect the other punctuation marks. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:50, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

• Re: "The current rule on Misplaced Pages is use the British rules in all articles, even ones otherwise written in American English." Is this statement accurate? If so, why? GabeMc 20:20, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

It's accurate but, in my view, misstated. The correct statement is, "use logical punctuation in all articles, including those written (not 'otherwise written') in American English". Using logical punctuation does not prevent the text from being in American English. --Trovatore (talk) 21:48, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

The statement is entirely accurate. "British punctuation" is also called "logical punctuation," and many of the regulars on this board prefer the second name. I find it a bit of a misnomer. The most logical way to write is the way that will be understood by one's readers and present the material well, and the two practices have little in the way of measurable differences in those two respects.

Using British punctuation prevents the text from being in correct American English, just as spelling "harbor" with a U prevents it from being in correct American spelling.

As for why the rule is in place, it's because many regulars on this board like British style a lot more than they like American style. I also dug through the archives and found one reference to a compromise between American and British English, the idea that Misplaced Pages would use double quotes all the time (under the mistaken belief that British punctuation requires single quotes) in exchange for using British punctuation around quotation marks. My personal take on the matter is that a disproportionate number of early Wikipedians were computer programmers, and using British style can be advantageous when dealing with raw strings of characters. However, that advantage disappears when the reader is a human being instead of a computer. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:43, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

It is in fact misstated. So-called "American" punctuation is not American at all; it was used in Britain until not so long ago. Typography is not the same thing as spelling — typesetting is arguably not part of the language at all. We should use logical punctuation because it is, in fact, more logical, at least in the sense that it more closely reflects the underlying logic of the sentence. That is not in and of itself the same as being more "logical" in the sense of being the more rational choice; that's a separate issue, but my position on that one is clear. --Trovatore (talk) 23:50, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Considering that I'm the one who made the statement, I'm the authority on whether or not it is a misstatement. It isn't. I said exactly what I meant to say. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:48, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually, Trovatore, to the extent that the various British and American style guides describe the differences between predominant style of quotation punctuation used in the United States and Canada and the system used by a majority in Britain, they invariably refer to them as "American style" and "British style." The phrase "logical quotation" is virtually never used in the reliable sources. You can call it whatever you want, but let's at least acknowledge what the actual sources call the two different systems. As for whether there is a distinct American style, at last count there were only two significant American style guides among literally dozens that advocate the use of British style/logical quotation. So, please let's acknowledge that reality and stop pretending that the American style is not the predominant system in both Canada and the United States. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:13, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it is the predominant system in the US. Nevertheless it is not "American". As an American I object to having my country's name associated with an inferior punctuation scheme, even if (unfortunately) it is the one most used here. --Trovatore (talk) 00:21, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

As I said above, Trovatore, you may call the American style whatever you want as a matter of personal preference, but let's also acknowledge that The Chicago Manual of Style, The New York Times, The Cambridge Guide to English Usage and numerous other American and British style books call them "American style" and the "British style" . . . Mind you, these "sources" are not five guys having an argument about inferior and most used punctuation schemes, but this is what actual reliable sources call the two different systems of quotation punctuation. I might add that virtually none of the reliable sources call the majority British practice "logical quotation"; that seems to be a relatively obscure phrase someone on Misplaced Pages latched onto for obvious reasons. I'm happy to consider any sources others may produce on point, and trade PDF copies of relevant excerpts from the 25+ American and Canadian style books I have accumulated over the past three weekends. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:34, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I stand by all my statements. It may well be that those manuals call it American. --Trovatore (talk) 00:44, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Trovatore, you have repeatedly been presented with proof that American punctuation is American. You don't like that it is American. You don't like that punctuation is part of the language. That is not the same as it not being true. I don't like that "logical punctuation" is one of British punctuation's names, but if I were to claim that it weren't actually one of the practice's names and therefore no one should use it, I'd be wrong.

As for the system being inferior, kindly provide proof: Show me a case of American punctuation causing even one non-hypothetical, non-imaginary problem on Misplaced Pages or in the real world. Don't just claim that your preferred system is superior; show us why it is worth it to deliberately use incorrect punctuation and to impose this requirement on others. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:46, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Bullshit. It's not American. That style guides call it American doesn't make it so. It was the style held over from the days of mechanical type, and was used just as much in Britain.

Logical punctuation is superior because it better reflects the underlying logic of the utterance. --Trovatore (talk) 03:49, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Prove it. We've shown you verifiable sources stating that American is American and British is British, verifiable to the point at which if I wanted to state in a Misplaced Pages article, "This is American style," I could cite at least one (in this case dozens) of sources and do it. Now you do the same. Find some sources that back you up or stop miseducating the newbies. No one here has expected you to take their word or their opinions as hard fact. Now you do the same.

Same answer: Prove it. Show how the fact that the logic of British style appeals to you improves the reader experience. Show that American punctuation causes problems or that British punctuation improves reading comprehension. Show that either style facilitates the retention of the material better than the other. Because otherwise "this is more logical" boils down to "this appeals to me personally." That's not bad but it's not something upon which the MoS should be based. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:55, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

First one: No, you haven't. You've given sources that call it American or British. Well, maybe they do say that; I don't know. But still, it's the wrong thing to call it. This is not an article, so it's not about sourcing it.

Logical punctuation appeals to me personally because it better reflects the logical structure of the utterance. That goes beyond a personal preference; that's what makes it logical. Typesetters' punctuation, on the other hand, is just a mistake. --Trovatore (talk) 03:59, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Trovatore, I don't claim that my sources could prove it in a court of law (although...), but they're definitely proof enough to meet WP:V. If I wanted to add the words "this punctuation style is American" to an article, I could cite these sources and do it. That is what I'm asking you to do, show us at least one Misplaced Pages-level source that agrees with you. You say that the idea that American English is American and British is British is "bullshit" and that American punctuation is "a mistake." Back up your claims or put them away. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:03, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I have backed them up. You can see my arguments above. I never said American English is not American, or that British English is not British. I said American and British are the wrong names to use for typesetters' and logical punctuation, respectively. I stand by that. Those are the wrong names, no matter how many style guides may call them that. And logical is superior to typesetters', and I've explained why. --Trovatore (talk) 22:35, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

You seem to be confused about my request. Stating and restating your opinion isn't proof, Trovatore. No, saying "this is more logical; this is more logical" does not explain what that does or doesn't make anything superior. What I'd consider proof is what I've shown you: A secondary source that backs you up. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:42, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not "stating my opinion". I have explained exactly why it's superior. This isn't an article so there are no rules about secondary sources. --Trovatore (talk) 22:44, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I was using WP:V as a yardstick, a threshold for what quality of proof I had provided. The point of this part of the conversation is that I didn't just expect you to take my word for it; I showed you sources. You have no grounds to refer to what I said as "bullshit" unless you can back up your own even more outlandish claims even better than I backed up mine. I'll settle for as well.

How's this: "American punctuation is superior to British because it is easier to learn, teach, use and copy-edit." Are you going to buy it just because I said so? Do I get to say that your unsubstantiated claims of BP being more logical are "bullshit"? Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:51, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

V is a standard for articles. The reasons it's a standard for articles have almost nothing to do with its reliability as a form of persuasive argument. They have to do instead with the nature of an encyclopedia.

Logical punctuation more closely reflects the underlying logic of the sentence, hence the name. I can detail in what ways it does so, if you like, but I think you know them`. --Trovatore (talk) 22:56, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Trovatore, I'll speak even more plainly. You don't agree with my position, but I've shown you sources that do. You, however, have done nothing but restate your own opinion. You act as if I should just take your word for it, and I have not expected you to just take mine. If you can't find sources of similar or better quality for your own position, then you should rethink that position. At the absolute least, you must stop referring to my position as "bullshit." If an evidence-supported position is bullshit, then an unsupported position must be something much worse. Darkfrog24 (talk) 07:17, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I have explained why your position is wrong. --Trovatore (talk) 07:38, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

No, Trovatore, you haven't. You claim that British punctuation "reflects the logic of the sentence," but you don't prove how or why, and you have offered no evidence that either system performs better than the other. I'm going to have to conclude that if you had sources or anything else that supported your position, you'd have provided them by now. You don't have to agree with me but you do have to stop claiming that my position is less grounded than yours. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:48, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Typesetter's punctuation wasn't a "mistake" for typesetters: it was a perfectly rational choice.
Instead of people taking sides based on nationalist preferences or on the supposedly "logical" nature of one convention over another, it would be more useful to recognize the underlying reality. Typography, whether spelling, capitalization, punctuation, spacing, or whatever, is a matter of convention. Even in so-called LQ, there are "illogical" conventions, e.g. forbidding repeated full stops. The following is the "logical" way to punctuate: She said "I don't know.". There are two sentences here; "logically" each should have its own full stop. However, I guess for reasons of appearance, no-one recommends punctuating like this.
Given that we have articles written in different styles of English, it's easier for readers – less jarring – if a consistent set of conventions is used throughout. Since the overwhelming majority of material written in American English outside Misplaced Pages uses TQ rather than LQ, this is what should be used inside Misplaced Pages unless it can be shown that there are real examples of significant advantages in not following the standard convention. I note that in spite of repeated challenges to produce these, no-one supporting LQ in American English articles has ever done so.
One reason I personally won't label these punctuation styles by nationality is that I'm British but sufficiently old to have used TQ in my early writing before LQ became such a common style in the UK; I still prefer the visual appearance of most examples of TQ, but accept that the convention has changed.
It's not Misplaced Pages's role to try to lead changes of conventions, but to reflect accurately the conventions that exist. The right answer to GabeMc's original question is, in my view, that many of the editors who built up the MOS came to believe via a local consensus that they should create conventions rather than reflect them. This was wrong, and needs to be corrected, not just in this matter but in a number of others. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:55, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I actually agree with you that the sentence you put in green is the ideal way to punctuate that sentence. However, we can quote only part of what she said, if we like, and therefore we can leave off the period that she would have written had she written the sentence rather than spoken it. So She said "I don't know". doesn't have anything actually wrong with it. --Trovatore (talk) 09:38, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Just as a passing comment, I would push back against the idea that LQ is "British" style. In fact, and as Peter suggests above, British practice varies widely as far as I can tell from both writing and reading in this country. And although many of the sources cited and quoted above suggest that there is something that is probably correctly identified as the predominant "American" style or practice, they are in no way as specific when it comes to defining a universal "British" style or practice. Hence it's slightly misconceived to present this issue as being an ENGVAR contradiction or about the imposition – sensible or otherwise – of one national style over another. When it comes to minor punctuation points, we simply do not always have the level of rigid certainty and clear distinction – or the visual impact for most readers, for that matter – that applies, for example, to spelling (for the most part at least, excluding the Oxford -ize of course). N-HH talk/edits 09:46, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. This is very like the situation regarding serial commas. And I think we should treat LQ and TQ (under whatever names) as options, prescribing nothing more than internal consistency within an article, as has been suggested by others here. When I copy edit, it makes me very uncomfortable to alter punctuation that already conforms perfectly well to many of the best style guides out there, just becuase the MOS tells me to. It feels pedantic, and I suspect that some good writers don't like it when their perfectly sound punctuation is altered like that. GabeMc queried it recently, and User:Toccata quarta did so a few months ago when I did a copy edit for him (the thread is here, starting at the 3rd paragrah). I think they are justified. That said, we can't ditch LQ from the set of available options, so that phrase, "communicates a complete sentence" still needs disambiguating. I've always treated it as meaning "is a complete sentence". But if that's the case, why not have it say so, and if it isn't, then what does it mean? --Stfg (talk) 11:09, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. Even if you could prove that British English allows either American or British style, American English doesn't. This isn't the case with the serial comma. It's kind of like how an article can use either -ize or -ise and still be written in a correct form of British English, but it must use -yse and not -yze. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:46, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Other punctuation issues are a good comparison. It's probably fair to say that the serial comma is more common in US writing and less so in British, while the em-dash is preferred in US writing for parentheticals over the en-dash seen more commonly in British texts. However, no one would surely say that one use is strictly "US English" and the other "British English"; nor does the WP MOS associate or classify them as such for ENGVAR purposes, and insist that US English articles use serial commas and em-dashes. All it asks when it comes to such punctuation issues is that text has clarity and that articles are consistent within themselves. N-HH talk/edits 11:19, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

There's a big difference between the serial comma and quotation punctuation in American English. There is nothing like a near-universal consensus regarding the mandatory use of the serial comma in the United States; in reality, the de facto rule is to use the serial comma when it makes sense to do so, or omit the final comma when it adds nothing. Pedants will argue for absolute consistency and are generally ignored. The serial comma debate, to the extent one can say there is a "debate," is on about the same level as that regarding split infinitives (which are now generally accepted). American style quotation punctuation (or "typesetter's quotation" if you prefer) is the nearly universal convention in American and Canadian English. So, yes, in American and Canadian English it is the predominant national convention per WP:ENGVAR. The fact that only a growing majority use British style quotation punctuation (or "logical quotation") in the UK, and not the overwhelming majority as use American style punctuation in the United States and Canada, does not mean that the obvious trans-Atlantic split in punctuation conventions does not exist. Supporters of British style quotation punctuation/logical quotation in Misplaced Pages feel the need to obscure this reality in order to sidestep the obvious ENGVAR issue. In the United States and Canada, "logical quotation" is a distinctly minority practice, generally limited to computer programming manuals and a handful of technical journals. The overwhelming mainstream practice in the United States and Canada, as demonstrated by the overwhelming majority of American and Canadian style guides, is to use "American style" quotation punctuation. Imposing British style quotation punctuation/logical quotation on Misplaced Pages articles written in American and Canadian English is odd, eccentric and contrary to standard American and Canadian English punctuation practices. Let's call it exactly what it is: the imposition of a personal preference that is contrary to the predominant practice in American and Canadian English. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:28, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

@Both Dirtlawyer and Darkfrog. Well, my main point was that there is no such thing as a consistent "British style" on this point while at the same time acknowledging that US practice does seem more fixed one way. So I don't quite see how replies that use the term "British style", predicated on the unevidenced assumption that there is such a thing, and that tell me that American practice is near universal are a response to anything I said, assuming they were meant to be. The first assertion is not accurate and the second I had already acknowledged (I would also dispute the claim – not that I made it originally anyway – that the use of the serial comma is not similarly near universal in US texts, but let's let that pass). Anyway, I only had a passing comment to make and I've made it. Look at how much space this crap has taken up – in my view while proceeding from several false assumptions – compared to the response someone coming to this page asking for practical help gets. N-HH talk/edits 21:24, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

ps: and, for the sake of clarity, I don't particularly favour the current MOS guidance; I'm just not convinced the solution lies in making it into a rigid ENGVAR or ENGVAR-equivalent issue, not least because there is no sound real-world reasoning or evidence in favour of doing that. N-HH talk/edits 21:33, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

"Unevidenced"? Why didn't you just ask? Here's some evidence.

"British style" and "British punctuation" are the terms most commonly used by reliable sources. No one here made them up or pulled them out of a hat. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:39, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Maybe not, but regardless of the descriptive terms that some formal – and mostly American, it would seem – style manuals might choose to distinguish styles of punctuation, there is, as I and several other British editors have now said, no consistent or prescriptive "British style" or practice of punctuation in respect of quotations that would be taken as correct – with any deviation as incorrect – in the UK. There isn't, and hence the phrase is misleading in the context of this discussion and it is misleading to propose an ENGVAR-style rule here that can work in the same way as for spelling, where there are clear correct and incorrect forms for certain words in US and UK versions of English respectively. N-HH talk/edits 23:15, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Do you perhaps mean that there is more than one British style? That's not the same as being no British style.

The term "logical punctuation" is even more misleading because it indicates that one of these two systems is more logical than the other. Rule out "British" and we have nothing left to call it.

There are clear and correct forms for punctuation, just as there are clear and correct forms for spelling. American English requires American punctuation and forbids British. You seem to be saying that BrE has more than one correct punctuation system, just as it has more than one correct spelling system, but we still refer to both Oxford and non-Oxford systems as British. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:15, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, now we're just into semantics. I mean what I said, which is that there is no one British style or practice. People can call individual systems whatever they like for all I care. And yes, there are very definitely clear rights and wrongs in some aspects of punctuation, but there are also much looser areas without right or wrong and where practice varies in myriad ways within national styles of English, eg from publisher to publisher, as well as between them. Regardless of the Oxford -ize – which is a limited and specific sub-variety that is clearly defined, understood and delineated – spelling is fixed, and fixed by national variety, in ways that punctuation is not always, including here. I'm surprised someone would continue to contest that rather obvious truism. N-HH talk/edits 09:01, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

The best way to avoid terminolgy with undesirable implications might be to name the systems by their internal characteristics rather than their historical or (claimed) external ones. Just for an Aunt Sally, how about "fixed-position punctuation" and "contextual punctuation", or something along those lines? --Stfg (talk) 10:19, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Semantics are underrated. We're using words to communicate, so their meanings are important. There are places where punctuation is not fixed—the serial comma jumps to mind—but the placement of periods and commas with quotation marks isn't one of them. In American English, British-style punctuation is wrong, so we shouldn't require editors to use it in American English articles. If you don't want me to believe that, then show me proof. Show me style guides that say that American English goes either way or show me articles about the history of the language written by experts. I would change my position on WP:LQ if someone could show me a series of conclusive studies stating that British style is significantly better for reading comprehension than American style is. (I don't think that any have yet been performed, though, and I wouldn't be surprised if American punctuation came out on top in a side-by-side study, but that's just me hypothesizing.)

That's a nice enough idea, Stfg, but it amounts to making up our own names for things. The whole point is that the MoS shouldn't attempt to improve English but instead reflect the language as it actually exists. Then there's the problem that, "contextual punctuation" presents British style in an unfairly favorable light. If we make up new names, everyone will try to arm their own preferred system with the most biased name that they can get away with. If we're going to frame one side as better than the other, then we should use the names that already exist. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:48, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I've never argued that either system is better than the other. The problem is that the national terms are divisive and tend to set in stone a crosspondian separation when it isn't even real. To call the one "American punctuation" ignores the fact that many (most, I suspect) Brits still use it. To call the other "British punctuation" implies that it's the default for BrE articles. Both are wrong. I understand the desire to use well attested terms and that style guides use those terms, but in my opinion style guides that use national terms are being tendentious. The printed style guides only need to be applied to one or other side of the Atlantic; we have a tougher problem that needs greater care. Can you think of a solution to this problem of divisiveness? --Stfg (talk) 16:28, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

1. Because ENGVAR is an established policy on Misplaced Pages, the idea of whether these systems are indeed American and British is relevant. 2. Reliable sources refer to them as American and British. So these names might be divisive, but they're also relevant and accurate.

The national divide on this issue is indeed real. "American" isn't just a name, this punctuation system is American. I don't expect you to take my word for it: Here are some sources that support this. As for the British system, it was invented by British guys named Fowler and Fowler and popularized in England in their book The King's English. It's used by most professional writers of British non-fiction, the same ones who produce the sources that we use on Misplaced Pages. If that's not enough to make it British, then I don't know what is. ...but you could tell me, of course. If you have sources or proof showing that American style isn't really American or that British isn't really British, then I'd be more than willing to look at it, just as I've asked you to look at mine. But no, I'm not going to stop using the correct names (though in the BrE case not the only correct name) of these systems just because some people wish there weren't a national divide on this issue.

My solution to the problem is that everyone must accept that there are things they don't like about this. I don't like that British style is also called "logical punctuation" because it implies that American style is illogical, but I put up with it because people showed me sources proving that that is one of its names. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:45, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I think we all need to remember this is "English Misplaced Pages" and not "North American Misplaced Pages". We can pick the best bits from each version of English, and use them to create a very readable encyclopedia, we dont have to stick with a majority of english speakers convention at all. Also remember ENGVAR covers spelling/vocabulary, but the MOS covers punctuation. -- Nbound (talk) 13:01, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Nbound, this may be the English Misplaced Pages, but we've actively embraced the idea that there is more than one national variety of English. For us to pick and choose little bits of each variety based solely on what contributors to this page happen to like would produce a system that is not correct by anyone's standards.

Its called compromise, just like we already have to do with dates :). Allowing articles with differing rules lowers the polish of the encyclopedia, can we do it, sure! Should we, probably not... - Nbound (talk) 22:36, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

What you're describing is dispensing with ENGVAR and picking just one national variety of English. I actually wouldn't mind if we picked British English for the whole encyclopedia, but that is a separate issue. It's been long established that the unit of consistency is the article, not the whole encyclopedia or even the Wikiproject. That may change, but it is how things are now.

I share your concern about lowering the tone of the encyclopedia, but the best way to project confidence and polish is to use correct English, and leaving periods and commas outside the quotation marks is flat-out wrong in American English. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:45, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

As stated earlier, ENGVAR applies to spelling and vocab only. MOS is the document used for punctuation. ENGVAR doesnt apply here, at all. Its not like North Americans can't read LQ (or vice versa), its a preference. LQ was chosen as it's more accurate. In another circumstance some North American quirk might provide a better outcome and it will be chosen over the Commonwealth version. The date example I listed is a good one, if we begin to go down the "use your national standard route", imagine we if started using MM/DD/YYYY on Nth American articles, and DD/MM/YYYY elsewhere... was that the 12th of February, or the 2nd of December!? -- Nbound (talk) 22:56, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:ENGVAR does fail to mention national differences in punctuation. That is one thing that I'd like to see changed. Regardless, the national varieties themselves do differ with respect to punctuation, and we should respect that the way we respect other differences.

You say that LQ is more accurate, but do you know or are you assuming? Can you show even one case of American punctuation causing an error, inaccuracy or confusion? I'm not being rhetorical. If you've seen American punctuation cause any non-hypothetical problems, that would be very relevant to this conversation. I've never seen or even read about one. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:10, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Sure, quotatations involving questions can sometimes be a little odd. If the quote contains the question mark it is clear a question was part of the quote. When if it is outside it may not be obvious (as it could be part of the quote, or it could be questioning the quote.

• He said, "Ten bags?". - means that the quote was actually the question. (Someone asked if there were ten bags)
• He said, "Ten bags"? - means either that the quote was actually the question (Someone asked if there were ten bags) OR that someone is wondering if that was what was said. (Someone else is confirming someone said there was ten bags)

Similar things can occur with other punctuation marks such exclamation marks. Discerning the originator of the proposed meaning can be a little harder under the North American standard. Of course, context can most of the time. Context will help someone trained in the Nth American way, to eventually figure out what is being described by the Commonwealth version, which does not leave the exact outcome upto the reader to decipher, but is rather part of the text. -- Nbound (talk) 10:23, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Uh, Nbound, you are apparently unfamiliar with the more arcane points of American style quotation punctuation. In the examples you cited, the results would probably be the same under either American style quotation punctuation or British style quotation punctuation/logical quotation. Generally, only commas and periods/full stops are invariably placed within the quote marks; other forms of punctuation -- colons, semicolons, question marks and exclamation points -- are only placed within the quote marks if the punctuation was part of the quoted passage. (See, e.g., The Chicago Manual of Style.) So, no, your examples would not be evidence of the superiority of BS/LQ over AS/TQ. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 11:39, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

What DL said, Nbound. American and British styles treat question marks and exclamation points the same way. They differ only in the treatment of periods and commas. Also, I'm not 100% that British style requires or even allows a period in He said, "Ten bags?". Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:51, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Dirtlawyer has it right. We went that dealt with this issue, and there were only two American guides that even allowed British style punctuation. Just two out of dozens, and they were both for specialized types of writing that we don't do on Misplaced Pages. The national divide is real. The only question is whether we treat every variety of English equally or allow full British next to American lite. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:46, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

@Dirtlawyer1, shall we try to avoid imputing motives to people? It seems from this discussion that there isn't agreement on whether it's an ENGVAR issue. However, that's a theoretical question. If we were to impose TQ on all articles written in AmE, we would suddenly render many FAs non-compliant with MOS, when they had previously been compliant. Same applies to GAs (MOS is not part of the GA criteria, but many GAs have been edited for MOS compliance anyway). Treating stop positions as separate from ENGVAR, as we already do with listing-comma habits and dash styles, would allow us to abandon the strict constraint to use LQ everywhere, without creating a lot of unproductive work. --Stfg (talk) 14:31, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

So, to be clear, is your preference to allow TQ or LQ so long as there is consistency within the article, in the way that we allow either unspaced em-dashes or spaced en-dashes, regardless of the ENGVAR? I can see that this might be the best compromise given where we are now, although not everyone's ideal solution. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:22, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Thanks for putting it so clearly. --Stfg (talk) 17:27, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Stfg, there is no need to "imput motives" when various editors are openly stating them in this discussion and others. In the face of the factual evidence from numerous reliable sources from Britain, Canada and the United States, past and present discussion participants have openly denied (a) that what you call "typesetter's quotation" (TQ) is most commonly called "American style" in the majority of reliable sources in both Britain and the United States, (b) American style quotation punctuation is the overwhelming majority practice in the United States and Canada, and (c) the British style majority practice is different from the American and Canadian style majority practice. The discussion even evokes an emotional response among the vocal minority of Americans who are personally committed to British style quotation punctuation/logical quotation because, well, they just believe it is "more logical." There is an Alice-in-Wonderland element to all of this when no amount of real world evidence seems to convince BS/LQ proponents that they are imposing an eccentric and distinctly minority practice on articles written in American and Canadian English, an imposition which leads to frequent discussions on the MOS talk page when North American editors repeatedly question why Misplaced Pages imposes a mandatory usage that is contrary to the standard punctuation practices of Americans and Canadians. To my knowledge, there is no other widely used and widely recognized punctuation practice that is defined along geographic/national lines in the same manner.

As for how a transition to American style quotation punctuation would work, I believe your concerns have merit. Personally, I would not impose an mandatory, across-the-board use of American style in articles written in American and Canadian English, and would allow for the continued use of BS/LQ in topic areas where BS/LQ is actually used in the subject area literature (e.g., chemistry, computer programming, and a small handful of others). Nor would I advocate an immediate conversion of Feature Articles and Good Articles written in American and Canadian English articles from BS/LQ to AS/TQ because of the attendant work, but such a transition would, I believe, be inevitable over time as editors would convert articles from one punctuation practice to the other. I don't see a problem with a gradual transition based on manual editing by knowledgeable editors; that should be applauded. What I do see as a potential problem is the attempted use of auto editor programs to effect the rushed transition without careful and considered editing. That having been said, I would accept any compromise that permitted new articles written in American and Canadian English to use AS/TQ, and that provided for an orderly transition, over time, from one practice to the other for the majority of articles that did not specifically adopt BS/LQ by consensus. In the absence of sloppy auto edits, I doubt that the transition would hardly be noticed. For instance, the George Washington GA has fewer than a dozen instances where the punctuation would change.

As I have repeatedly said, the Manual of Style works best for everyone when it tracks the conventional practices used by the majority in the real world because that leads to greater voluntary compliance. Imposing a minority practice simply leads to more non-compliance, aggravation, and endless talk page discussion, here and elsewhere. In this case, "logic" suggests that MOS should recognize that there is a significant geographic/national split in quotation punctuation practices, and not try to impose a minority practice on most articles written in Canadian and American English. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:32, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

With one small change, this point of Dirtlawyer1's should be in a box at the top of every MOS page: The Manual of Style works best for everyone when it tracks the conventional practices used by the majority in the real world because that leads to greater voluntary compliance. Attempting to impose a minority practice simply leads to more non-compliance, aggravation, and endless talk page discussion, here and elsewhere. Yes! Peter coxhead (talk) 16:54, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Dirtlawyer1: you said "Supporters of British style quotation punctuation/logical quotation in Misplaced Pages feel the need to obscure this reality in order to sidestep the obvious ENGVAR issue." I don't think anyone admits to wanting to "obscure the reality" or to intending to "sidetep" an "obvious" issue. That's what I was referring to. --Stfg (talk) 17:25, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Stfg, a lot of articles already use American punctuation, even featured articles that appear on the front page. I checked every article-of-the-day for a year and change, and some used American. Even more of them were an inconsistent mix. This rule has pretty low compliance already. Reforming WP:LQ it wouldn't make quite as much more work for people as you seem to think; the work is already there. Also, MoS or no MoS, articles that purport to be written in AmE but use BrE punctuation are incorrect and would be improved by being fixed, regardless of what we decide here. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:46, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Excellent. You understand, I'm sure, that I'm on the side of not forcing AmE articles to use LQ. I have a problem with the terminology you're using, and would have a problem if you want to enforce a link between ENGVAR and puctuation style. These problems are elaborated below. --Stfg (talk) 18:32, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

On terminology: TQ was the standard for the English-speaking world 50 years ago -- Peter Coxhead mentioned having used it, and I was taught it (as the only "correct" form) between 50 and 60 years ago (I'm British). So "American punctuation" is certainly a misnomer. What has happened more recently is that some people have started to adopt LQ. Since you say so, I'll accept that has happened faster in the UK than in North America, but many Brits still use TQ, so "British punctuation" is also a misnomer. Will that evolution speed up, slow down or even go into reverse, and in which countries? Nobody knows. Should we try to accelerate it or to slow it down? No, in my opinion. Why impose a rule on either AmE or BrE writers? If most AmE writers prefer TQ, they will naturally use it. If some BrE writers still prefer TQ (which I believe to be the case), let them use it. And mutatis mutandi for writers on either side of the pond who prefer LQ. Speaking as someone who has copy edited for writers on both sides of the Atlantic, all I want is not to be forced to de-voice them by imposing a choice of method that differs from their preference. Tying their punctuation to their spelling of harbo(u)r is just one way to constrain people's choice of how they write. Why do it? --Stfg (talk) 18:32, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

As I've said before, I much prefer LQ to TQ but I find some of the arguments here compelling; specifically, if we allow editors to write in any of the recognized standard dialects of English then I think we should be similarly tolerant with respect to punctuation. More precisely, I think that the author of an article should be able to use either punctuation style and MOS should not prefer one over the other, except that the style should be consistent within the article and we shouldn't permit needless conversions from LQ to TQ or vice versa. The reason for this is that for some editors, forcing LQ over TQ may be unnatural and might discourage would-be contributors. Besides, I don't think it's important enough to risk alienating any of our fellow editors over the issue. Dusty|💬|You can help! 19:36, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Stfg, as for "American punctuation" being a misnomer, the bottom line is that no it's not. The overwhelming majority of style guides refer to the two practices by these names. As for usage, if 100% compliance were required, then we wouldn't be able to say "American spelling" or "British spelling" either. I live in the U.S. and watch movies at an establishment with the word "Theatre" written on it and I drive past a "Town Centre."

I prefer the term "British punctuation" to "logical punctuation" because I feel that LP implies that American punctuation is illogical, but that is one of the practice's names and I have no ground to tell other people that they're wrong for calling it that.

Also, I came to accept that LP is a valid name because I saw it used to refer to British punctuation in reliable sources. I've never seen "TQ" in one, however. Do you happen to have one on link?

The MoS should curtail people's choices by instructing them on correct vs. incorrect English. The case can be made that British English allows either American or British punctuation, but American English requires American, so no, the MoS shouldn't allow British style in American English articles. The national divide on this issue is very real, so we really should have some form of ENGVAR-based rule.

That beings said, even just allowing editors to use context-correct punctuation would be a huge improvement over requiring context-incorrect punctuation. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:34, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

• I've a feeling everyone in this discussion probably pretty much understands everyone else's point of view by now. Has anyone got an idea on how to progress? :) --Stfg (talk) 23:35, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Are there any compelling arguments why we would choose to not follow the multitude of US and UK style guides? I.e., if the punctuation mark is part of the original quoted material then we retain its original placement in said material. What could be easier than that? GabeMc 23:44, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Uh, that's not what the style guides say, GabeMc. The American style guides all say not to do that. They say that periods and commas go inside the closing quotation marks regardless. For the most part, the British style guides do not.

That being said, I believe an ENGVAR-based rule would be best, but I could get behind almost anything that even allowed American punctuation in American English articles; I could get behind lifting the ban. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:18, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps I've misrepresented my position. The 16th edition of CMOS (2010) states: "In an alternative system, sometimes called British style ... only those punctuation points that appeared in the original material should be included within the quotation marks." That's really all I meant to convey. What am I missing Darkfrog24, I'm the one who quoted 9 styled guides above that agree with you? GabeMc 01:30, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I was confused because you said "Let's do what the style guides say," but the style guides say to use American punctuation when writing in American English. Yes, those that describe the British system describe it the way you just did. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:19, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

It seems we have four options:

• Keep WP:LQ as it is, requiring British/logical punctuation in all articles regardless of the national variety of English in which the article purports to be written.
• Require American punctuation in American English articles and British/logical punctuation in British articles, etc.
• Require American punctuation in American English articles but allow either style in British articles so long as each article is internally consistent.
• Allow either style of punctuation in any article so long as each article is internally consistent.

The second of these two options seems to be the one that reflects the source material most accurately, but others have argued that British English really allows either style. I don't like the fourth option, but it's definitely better than the first one. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:43, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I can accept the fourth option provided the styles are not described with national labels. --Trovatore (talk) 00:46, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Options 2 and 3 are absurd; there is some evidence that the styles are changing; if they do, are we going to rewrite all the articles in question? I prefer #1 as being unambiguous (particularly in regard quotes within quotes), but could accept #4. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:20, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by styles changing. American English has always required American punctuation and has always forbidden British, going back to at least 1906. We're not talking about changing WP:LQ to reflect some recent change in the English language. The rule contradicted the requirements of American English even when it was first put in place. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:25, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I have seen a number of specific journal style guides which provide for LQ, whether or not published in the US. Furthermore, at my last full-time employer (based in the US, but multinational) the style guide specified LQ. I'm saying that the preferred style is subject to change, and is changing. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:30, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

A few weeks ago, a bunch of us dug around looking for style guides that dealt with this issue . If you'd seen one that specifically said to use B/LQ in American English, I'd be very interested in seeing it as well. It would be highly relevant. Did it have an official name? Also, in what industry were you working? Law? Programming? Literary criticism?

As for the language changing, of course it is. No contest there. But at any given point in time, there are things that are correct and things that are incorrect. Right now, American English requires American punctuation. If B/LQ becomes standard AmE in five or twenty years down the line, we can always change the MoS when it happens. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:23, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

• I find 1 through 3 unappealing (if #1 worked in practice, this thread would not be two miles long), but I support the fourth option. GabeMc 01:32, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
• DF, it's not a simple them-and-us pattern, is it? See what Arthur has pointed out above. Tony (talk) 02:39, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
• Generally, the period inside non-full-sentence quotes looks awkward and messed-up, so I'll have to go with "option 1". I will never use "American style" punctuation all the time, nor will I be required to. I'd rather just stick with the "logical punctuation" style rather than us having to restart this debate over and over again and be forced go with the "punctuation-inside-the-quotes-all-the-time" crowd. Jim856796 (talk) 04:05, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Tony, regardless of whether British English permits both, it is pretty clear that American English doesn't. That part is simple.

Jim856796, British style looks awkward and wrong to me, but I've used it when writing in British English. In the years that I've seen this matter discussed, appearance has shown itself to be an eye of the beholder thing. As for "punctuation-inside-the-quote-all-the-time," I don't think I've encountered anyone who's seriously advocated that. It would be wrong to require a system that is incorrect in one major national variety throughout all of Misplaced Pages. That's why "Require American punctuation in all articles" isn't among the options listed above. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:19, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

No, American English, the language, does not in fact require TQ. It's not properly a language issue per se, at least not in the usual sense — it's more of a typography issue. You can say that American style manuals (or at least most of them) require TQ. --Trovatore (talk) 05:47, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I can say that the style manuals require it. I can also say that teachers require it in school. I can also say that the professional-level and educated writers use it. I can also say that this is how nearly the entirety of American literature is written. All of this together adds up to "the language requires it"/"it is correct American English." If you want me to stop saying it, show me comparable or better reasons why I should. Darkfrog24 (talk) 06:18, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

It's still a typography issue, not the language in the usual sense. To the extent that it's an issue of the formal language, TQ is just an error; no one would intentionally design that into a formal system. For the language in the informal sense, it's just not part of it. --Trovatore (talk) 06:22, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Trovatore, the word "error" means "The act or an instance of deviating from an accepted code of behavior, especially unintentionally." The style guides all say to do it; teachers all say to do it; professional writers all do it. It's safe to say that American punctuation is not an error. It is 1. in compliance with said code of behavior and 2. deliberate. You should really stop throwing around words like "error."

But if you were writing an encyclopedia, you wouldn't be designing a system for computers, Trovatore, you'd be designing it for human beings whose brains process images and visual meaning in some very counterintuitive ways. It doesn't make sense that serif and sans serif fonts are easier or harder to read depending on the light source, but they are. I wouldn't be surprised if American punctuation is one day proven to be literally easier on the eyes in a similar way. From what a century and change of trial and error have told us, though, there are no obvious differences in performance between U.S. and British punctuation systems. Darkfrog24 (talk) 07:10, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

DF, obviously that's not the sense of the word "error" that I meant. It's an error more in the sense of getting the wrong answer to a problem, not in the sense of conforming to a code of behavior. Punctuation is there to mark the logical structure of an utterance. TQ fails to accomplish that, at least in as direct a way as possible. --Trovatore (talk) 07:21, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Only if you treat every symbol that is between the quote marks as a literal character string, as in computer programming. That's not the way reading actual words works, though. It is understood that by readers familiar with TQ (which is the vast majority of English readers, by the way) that the included comma/stop is part of the quoting process, part of the quote mark really. oknazevad (talk) 08:53, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I have to agree with Oknazevad, Trovatore. It's not clear how using American punctuation would be like the wrong answer to a problem. The problem is communication, and American punctuation solves it perfectly well. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:48, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

No consensus? The problem seems to be that there would now appear to be no consensus to introduce the current rule requiring LQ everywhere. But neither is there a clear consensus to remove it. Sigh... Peter coxhead (talk) 08:31, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

There's certainly no unanimity, and I don't see how we're ever going to reach it. But has anyone actually said they wouldn't accept option 4 as a compromise? --Stfg (talk) 08:40, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

It's not perfect, but option four does allow for most anyone to do what they feel is best. Actually, that no one is fully happy with it and only support it grudgingly is actually a sign of a good compromise. oknazevad (talk) 08:53, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Ok, so we need to stop discussing – which is going nowhere – and see if there is indeed a consensus on option 4. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:16, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Support option four. I would prefer option two or three, but anything that allows editors to go in and correct the punctuation in American English articles would be an improvement over the current rule. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:53, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I need to understand something: Are you saying that an editor who creates an article in AmE would not be allowed the choice of punctuation method; and if they tried to use LQ, they could be overruled by another editor who considers that period/comma-inside-quotes is the only permissible method for AmE articles? --Stfg (talk) 16:58, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

My take on the matter? I'd go to the talk page of an American article that used British punctuation and say, "Hey, anyone mind if I change the British punctuation to American? We're allowed to do that now." Then I'd wait a day or two and when no one responded—because almost no one but us cares about this—I'd go in and make the changes. I guess it could work in the other direction as well. As far as the wording, it would treat American and British styles equally. I don't think that's good, but it's better than British-no-matter-what. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:48, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Perfect, thanks. I was actually about to strike my question, having realised that it seemed to imply option 3. That was unintentional and I apologise for it. --Stfg (talk) 17:59, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Support option four. I support the option that is least restrictive in that it also allows for the unlikely possibility that an editor might be neither British nor American and thus unfamiliar with the nuances of whether to put a full stop inside the quote marks or a period on the outside. It also allows WP to accommodate emerging changes in punctuation styles without having to revisit the policy, which will free us to handle more pressing issues such as whether to assign ethnonymic labels or descriptive labels to the various punctuation styles while discussing them on talk pages. Dusty|💬|You can help! 17:37, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Support option four for the reasons given by Dusty and with the understanding that the names are for separate discussion. (Thanks for suggesting that, Dusty.) --Stfg (talk) 17:59, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Support option four provided the styles are not described by national labels. --Trovatore (talk) 20:04, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Support option four. - Just in case my above support is not clear or has been lost in the thread. GabeMc 20:29, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Reject the premise – I still don't think it's fair to call LQ "British" style and to lobby to use it selectively or only on British articles, just because it originated there and is more common there. It was adopted as WP style because it is more logical, conveying intended meaning better, and that's good enough reason to continue to recommend it as the preferred style and to work toward using it more consistently. Dicklyon (talk) 21:54, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Support option four – I've been keeping tabs on this discussion, and I also agree it is the best available compromise. —Torchiest _edits 22:01, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Lead of seven paragraphs

I need a quick third opinion as to whether the current lead of Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution (seen here) is MOS-compliant. It consists of seven paragraphs of one or two sentences apiece. Is this acceptable under WP:LEADLENGTH and WP:PARAGRAPH? It seems odd to me, but perhaps I'm being too rigid in my reading of these guidelines. Thanks, -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:15, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I would absolutely condense those graphs to no more than four. GabeMc 03:21, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Is that only your opinion or do you believe that article's Introduction is not MOS-compliant? Would bulletpointing help? SMP0328. (talk) 03:24, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

It is my opinion that the lead is not currently MoS compliant and I would not advise the use of bulletpointing for the same reason. GabeMc 03:29, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Brief informative headings

This is a reminder for the attention of all editors of WT:MOS or of any other talk page. Brief informative headings (and subheadings, and so forth) help all of us to use the table of contents (of a talk page, either active or archived) and to follow changes to watchlisted pages. A simple glance at a heading in a table of contents or in a watchlist can often be enough to help an editor to decide whether to investigate a discussion further.
A heading does not need to contain every detail describing a discussion, but should contain enough information to convey, as narrowly as it can within practical limits, the scope of the discussion. Attitudinal words (whether they are positive or neutral or negative) are generally wasted words when they are in a heading. Topical words help to identify the topic of a discussion.
Subheadings can often be more challenging than main headings, but concise informativeness can be achieved when a subheading repeats briefly some or all of the main heading and then adds information specific to the section. A subheading "Arbitrary break" appearing in a watchlist (or in a link on a talk page) contains very little useful information.
Concise informativeness is a skill to be developed by practice. (If any professional instructor is reading this, then that person can incorporate the teaching of this skill into the report-writing part of the teaching program. The benefits of that skill can be applied to e-mail subject lines and to advertising and marketing.)
Here are links to archived discussions.

• Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Archive 120#Informative headings and subheadings (March 2011)
• Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Archive 114#Informative headings, subheadings, sub-subheadings, etc. (March 2010)

Here is an external link to additional information.

• Microcontent: How to Write Headlines, Page Titles, and Subject Lines

Brief informative headings in WT:MOS can help me (or anyone else) to maintain Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Register. Brief informative headings can help all of us to use that page and Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Archive Directory efficiently. I understand that, when there is an issue raised about a style guideline, editors can be very absorbed in trying to settle it and unaware of unintended consequences. However, I request help from all editors so that those pages can be maintained and used with minimal time being spent in studying future past discussions. Then, when a discussion will have been archived, it will be more accessible and more easily documented. Past discussions are in the past, but henceforth we can all spend time in forming brief informative headings.
—Wavelength (talk) 00:09, 24 June 2013 (UTC) and 22:47, 25 June 2013 (UTC)