Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:21, 22 September 2014

Manual of Style

This page falls within the scope of the Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style, a collaborative effort focused on enhancing clarity, consistency, and cohesiveness across the Manual of Style (MoS) guidelines by addressing inconsistencies, refining language, and integrating guidance effectively.Manual of StyleWikipedia:WikiProject Manual of StyleTemplate:WikiProject Manual of StyleManual of Style This page falls under the contentious topics procedure and is given additional attention, as it closely associated to the English Misplaced Pages Manual of Style, and the article titles policy. Both areas are subjects of debate. Contributors are urged to review the awareness criteria carefully and exercise caution when editing. For information on Misplaced Pages's approach to the establishment of new policies and guidelines, refer to WP:PROPOSAL. Additionally, guidance on how to contribute to the development and revision of Misplaced Pages policies of Misplaced Pages's policy and guideline documents is available, offering valuable insights and recommendations.

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

WP:HOWEVER

This used to redirect to Misplaced Pages:Avoid thread mode ("Don't "However" a position in the middle of stating its case."), but User:BarrelProof redirected it to Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style#Semicolon before "however" last year explaining that "this shortcut has been very seldom used for its original intended purpose". I count eleven usages of it, all of them talking about its original thread mode context, and none using it to talk about semicolons in the past year. Is it worth moving this back? I've tripped over it a couple of times recently because I can never remember the WP:ATM acronym for thread mode. --McGeddon (talk) 14:22, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the courtesy of bringing it up rather than just changing it back. (There is also MOS:HOWEVER, created around the same time as that change.) To me it seems a lot less cumbersome to use and to remember WP:HOWEVER than WP:HOWEVERPUNC, and it seems difficult to remember that the two strimgs could lead to different places; however, I guess I have to acknowledge that my modified version of the shortcut hasn't proved so popular thus far. Perhaps that is because the article doesn't mention that it exists, whereas it does mention the WP:HOWEVERPUNC shortcut, although it appears that WP:HOWEVERPUNC / MOS:HOWEVERPUNC is even less popular. The uses basically all seem to be in old archives from before the change of destination. Anyhow, I suppose I won't feel obliged toward seppuku if it gets changed back the way it was. —BarrelProof (talk) 23:15, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikimedia product development and en.WP style

Dear friends,

I believe it's proper that you, as developers and maintainers of language style and formatting on this site, be aware that product development is soon going to be an increasing part of our editing landscape. This is intrinsically a good thing: in many respects Wikimedia has been desperately slow to adapt technically to rapid changes in the internet (the extraordinary shift to mobile devices is creating something of an emergency for our platform, right now—if you take a look at the stats).

So, as you might imagine, there's something of a disconnect between tech developers and the stylistic rules and guidance in the MOS (indeed any rules and guidance in the English language). The message is that we need to make sure we keep abreast of the stylistic patterns in WMF products under development; if we don't, we're likely to experience roll-outs that cause massive dissonance—and no one wants that.

An example: my alarm bells started ringing when I viewed the video of the July 31 WMF monthly metrics meeting yesterday. A demonstration of an automated device for creating references for Visual Editor produced this date format for URL access dates:

Thu Jul 31 2014

I've corresponded with Sherry Snyder, Community Liaison (Products) on the matter, so that the WMF is aware of the need for stylistic liaison. She informed me that in any case that glitch has been fixed by changing the output to ISO (which will eventually need our consideration, I guess).

My purpose in writing this thread is to flag that during the next six to 12 months we might need to extend ourselves to a new arm of negotiation—among ourselves, with the en.WP community, and with WMF CL(P), which is the bridge between the communities and engineering. Your opinions and reactions to this general issue would be helpful, even at this early stage.

Thanks

Tony (talk) 10:42, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the date issue, I've long argued that we should store dates in templates in ISO format, and code the template to display them in house- (or user-preferred-) style. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:06, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Andy: interesting. Perhaps we can explore this suggestion more widely when the time comes. Tony (talk) 12:14, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I know that dates formatted per user preferences have been discussed and rejected here at English WP in the past, but I wonder if people's views would be different if there were a global setting in all Wikimedia wikis to display ISO dates (i.e. dates stored in the ISO format) according to a reader's preference. From a technical standpoint, that may be more workable/acceptable than implementing date display preferences on en.WP via templates or JavaScript of whatever we would otherwise have to resort to. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:04, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I think getting readers to start clicking preferences before they view WP (even just the first time on a device) has not been on the table for a number of reasons. And it's not trivial, given that date formats within quotations and some other items have to be untouched. I suspect some people on the tech side would propose the imposition of unitary systems where the en.WP community has painstakingly worked out solutions based on article-consistent binaries: engvar, weights and measures, and date formats. This would induce a permanent state of riot, I think, among editors and not least many readers! Tony (talk) 00:07, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

No Hyphen required

Greetings, from an active editor attached to WP:WPAA. I would like to bring up something regarding WP:HYPHEN. I have come across a couple instances of hyphenating the word Asian American. May I point towards CMOS answer to this issue:

I don’t see any logic in requiring the hyphenation of compound proper nouns when they are used as adjectives. In fact, because they are capitalized, there is no need for additional bells and whistles to signal that they belong together: Rocky Mountain trails, New Hampshire maple syrup, SpongeBob SquarePants lunchbox.

This is also discussed here, referring to the issue of Hyphenated American, as one reason why it (the hyphen) is dropped. In addition it appears that ASA, as cited by Purdue Univesity, has weighed in on this subject.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:50, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages or Misplaced Pages

I noticed that the guide's first sentence, The Misplaced Pages Manual of Style (often abbreviated within Misplaced Pages as MoS or MOS) is a style manual for all Misplaced Pages articles., has the term Misplaced Pages three times, but only italicized at the first mention. I assume this is intentional, but can anyone explain why it's italicized on the first mention only? Rationalobserver (talk) 18:51, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Arguably it should be bold as it's (sort of) part of the page title, but I don't think it should be italic. Bazonka (talk) 19:12, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

You can ask the editor (User:Jodosma) who inserted it at 19:27, 24 July 2014.

—Wavelength (talk) 19:34, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I italicized Misplaced Pages just to emphasize that there are many "Manuals of Style" in this world which have been produced for and by all kinds of organizations for all sorts of reasons and this is just one of a multitude. I didn't feel the need to continue the emphasis after the first mention. Jodosma (talk) 19:59, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

IMO, it appears as an error. The use of italics at the second word fails to convey emphasis, as it's not at all clear what we are differentiating. Also, the sentence accomplishes the act of establishing what this MoS applies to, e.g., "is a style manual for all Misplaced Pages articles". Would you object to my removal of these italics? Rationalobserver (talk) 20:11, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Removing the italics on Misplaced Pages as you suggest would be the best choice. I could see how some might have an argument for bolding Misplaced Pages, but this isn't an article, we're describing our manual of style internally. On other pages it's described as "the English Misplaced Pages's Manual of Style" so it doesn't seem like "Misplaced Pages" is necessarily part of our formal title for it.__ E L A Q U E A T E 21:41, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm happy to go along with your decision. Jodosma (talk) 12:33, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Contractions

Rationalobserver, the longstanding sentence is simple: Sometimes rewriting the sentence as a whole is preferable. It is not an improvement to expand it to Alternatively, sometimes it may be preferable to rewrite a sentence so as to avoid the uncontracted form altogether. This is overwriting.

Also, the examples you're trying to include are very weak. The first ones you added didn't contain a single contraction. In your second attempt, there is nothing obviously wrong with the sentence you're telling people to avoid. It doesn't illustrate a problem. There's no stylistic reason to advise people that John was unsupportive is somehow better than John was not supportive based on avoidance of contractions.

And finally, some of your edits are good, but not all of them have been considered helpful. When people disagree, bring it here to the talk page, instead of tying to work it out in guideline-space. Really, at this point, if you're making more than a trivial change, you should bring it here to discuss with your fellow editors. __ E L A Q U E A T E 19:10, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough, but before I attempted to improve the language it read: "But contractions should not be expanded mechanically. Sometimes rewriting the sentence as a whole is preferable", which I think is empty and nebulous without an example of when and why it might be preferable to avoid the uncontracted form. John wasn't supportive of his pupils could be written as, John was not supportive of his pupils, but John was unsupportive of his pupils is arguably even better. I'm not sure why you see this as a bad example in terms of content or syntax. Can you give an example of when it's better to avoid the uncontracted form, because without an example this is hollow and meaningless? Rationalobserver (talk) 19:25, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I really don't think that I'm going out on a limb to say that was not supportive or wasn't supportive is best rendered as unsupportive versus not supportive. Same with incomplete versus not complete, unhelpful versus not helpful, etcetera. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:49, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

That example doesn't illustrate a problem to me. "Unsupportive" and "not supportive" are functionally and stylistically identical. Anybody reading the MOS will be more confused about what they should do after reading that.

(There could be a small quibble in certain contexts that there is a difference in tone regarding active agency between "he was unhelpful that day" and "he did not help that day". But in that case, you're actually suggesting the one that is more open to misinterpretation from an original "didn't help").

The main point of the section is to prefer uncontracted words, but to not mechanically reverse all instances on Misplaced Pages. Giving complicated examples of exceptional cases seems to take the attention away from "Avoid contractions as the default. If you change one, be thoughtful. Sometimes rewrite the sentence if it bothers you". __ E L A Q U E A T E 20:16, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Right, but if neither one of us can think of an explicit example whereby the uncontracted form is displeasing, then why should the MoS suggest that not all uncontracted forms are preferable to avoidance. Maybe it's too prescriptive to suggest that sometimes writers rewrite sentences, which is stating the painfully obvious. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:22, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

The MOS does not say there aren't situations where uncontracted forms are preferable...The original text you changed was

Uncontracted forms such as do not or it is are the default in encyclopedic style; don't and it's are too informal. But contractions should not be expanded mechanically. Sometimes rewriting the sentence as a whole is preferable.

All that means is that contractions should usually be spelled out, and if it looks awkward to the editor in context, then the sentence can be re-written at editorial discretion. You're overcomplicating this, I think. __ E L A Q U E A T E 20:37, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Maybe, but to state that "rewriting the sentence" is sometimes "preferable to ... mechanically expanding contractions" is the same thing, IMO, and you might be indulging in semantics. You still haven't provided an example where an uncontracted form should be rewritten. How about, "If expanding a contraction creates an awkward construction, rewrite the sentence to avoid the uncontracted form"? Rationalobserver (talk) 20:44, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

"Mechanically" just means "without thought" here. The MOS isn't demanding people re-write sentences in any situation instead of simply uncontracting the words; it's offering it as a theoretical option at editor discretion. It's so that people don't feel stuck in a prescriptive rule in case there's an oddball situation in context. If you want an example of one of those oddball examples, I would suggest that It's Isis's fault would be better re-written as It is the fault of Isis than to force people to read It is Isis's fault. Having said that, I think an example like that is not need in the section, because it's a distraction. Better to just tell people that Sometimes rewriting the sentence as a whole is preferable. in plain language. __ E L A Q U E A T E 21:09, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I guess I've come around to your thinking, but I made this slight adjustment to the prose, which I think we can agree on. Rationalobserver (talk) 21:21, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

That looks good to me. Nice work.__ E L A Q U E A T E 21:28, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your help! I hope I wasn't too difficult to work with. Rationalobserver (talk) 21:36, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Request for opinions

I've requested opinions regarding the appropriate usage of categories when the verifiable information appears at a "sub-article". Discussion here. Thank you for your feedback! DonIago (talk) 14:13, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Logical quotation

I noticed that Slim Virgin has been improving the section on logical quotation; nice work! I also noticed that there appears to be an error or omission contained therein. I'm specifically referring to this statement:

"On the English Misplaced Pages, place all punctuation marks inside the quotation marks if they are part of the quoted material and outside if they are not, regardless of the variety of English in which the article is written ... It does not require placing final periods and commas inside or outside the quotation marks all the time, but maintains their original positions in (or absence from) the quoted material.

This is not 100% accurate to LQ as described by Fowler, because a reproduction of what is technically a complete sentence does not necessarily justify inclusion of the full stop inside the quote marks, even when the full stop is present in the source material. E.g., if the quoted fragment does not represent the author's complete thought as presented in the source material. Fowler gives this sentence as an example:

Do not follow a multitude to do evil.

If we quoted a portion of that material that was also a complete sentence, such as We need not "follow a multitude to do evil", the full stop would not, according to Fowler, belong inside, because the quoted portion does not reproduce the author's complete thought. I'm not sure if I've explained this all that well, but hopefully others will understand what I mean. Rationalobserver (talk) 17:39, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I also think it might be helpful to re-order the text a bit to make it clearer earlier that the final period of the quoted sentence is retained only when the end of the quoted sentence and the end of the matrix sentence coincide ("here a quoted sentence occurs before the end of the containing sentence, a full-stop inside the quotation marks should be omitted"). I suppose that rule also applies when the only remaining part of the matrix sentence is a bracket, as in my last sentence. Similarly we should clarify (if correct) that the first word of the quoted sentence is capitalized only if the beginning of the quoted sentence coincides with the beginning of the matrix sentence; I couldn't find this anywhere, and there does seem to be some confusion about it. --Boson (talk) 21:17, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

The capitalization issue is discussed in Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style#Typographic conformity. Rationalobserver (talk) 21:23, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! I thought I'd seen it somewhere. It still seems odd that capitalization of the first word and terminating a sentence with a period are dealt with so far apart. --Boson (talk) 23:57, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

This is one of the most contentious parts of the MOS, with multiple RFCs and pages of debate, from as early as last month. Adding advice about non-logical punctuation is confusing, since that's not what we use. The wording has been heavily debated too, and I think reverting to pre-debate versions is just likely to create the exact same debates all over again. __ E L A Q U E A T E 21:46, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

For now I think we should revert to the wording that was settled from the last few debates. I don't think SlimVirgin had a clear consensus to revert to wording that is guaranteed to cause major drama, as it is the exact wording that caused major drama in the past.. If people want to suggest changes to this section, suggest the wording here and get consensus, otherwise we'll have a lot of angry editors who invested days of their lives in the last few debates. __ E L A Q U E A T E 21:54, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

This section has an inline note, that I hope was just accidentally not noticed by the editor making the change: EDITORS PLEASE NOTE: Changes to this section may escalate into heated dispute. Please consider raising any proposed changes for discussion and consensus-building on the talk page before editing. __ E L A Q U E A T E 21:59, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

• We ought to retain a description of aesthetic punctuation, given that it's what most Wikipedians use (and probably most of the publishing world). It's otherwise not clear what the choice is. We also need a description of LQ. Was there consensus to remove it, and if so, can someone point me to the discussion? SlimVirgin 22:12, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

If we say what to use on Misplaced Pages, then it's clear what we use. I know there's a choice in the greater world. That's true of every other section in the MoS. We don't list everything we don't use, and in this case, we have a large number of examples in that section. Any attempt at describing LQ in greater detail to everyone's satisfaction have led to acrimonious debate. I can't dig up every discussion right now, but if you look in the archive under "Logical quotation" you'll see how heated and protracted the discussions were. __ E L A Q U E A T E 22:18, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I think this was the last discussion to attempt consensus: . I don't think anyone wants to do this from scratch by reverting to a version all of these editors squabbled over.__ E L A Q U E A T E 22:27, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Someone removed the long-standing warning that LQ does not involve placing all periods and commas outside, which is what most Wikipedians think it means. I can't find consensus to remove that, so if it exists, please show me. I have added:

This practice does not require placing final periods and commas inside or outside quotation marks all the time. (In contrast, when using aesthetic punctuation (common in the United States, and much of British fiction and British journalism), periods and commas are always placed inside the closing quotation marks, whether or not they are part of the original quoted material.

From "in contrast," sourced to R. M. Ritter, New Hart's Rules: The Handbook of Style for Writers and Editors, Oxford University Press, 2005, pp. 155–156. SlimVirgin 22:39, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Someone removed it after months of discussion. If you want it returned please discuss first. All it takes is one look at the archives to see that making broad undiscussed changes to this section is like starting a forest fire of wasted editor energy. __ E L A Q U E A T E 22:42, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

This instant reverting is really unacceptable, especially when it's a long-standing sentence that's being restored. The way that section is currently written is very unclear. Please point to the discussion where it was agreed to remove that sentence. Otherwise let me restore it. SlimVirgin 22:44, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I think the fact you ignored the inline note to seek consensus first was regrettable first. Since that was changed with discussion on the talk page, it's now a bold addition to change it to the pre-discussed version. I think you should show you have a consensus for your change. This is a perennial hot issue, and big changes should be discussed first. I pointed you to this earlier discussion and you should also consider talking to FormerIP about the addition. What the other involved editors ended up with doesn't look my proposed text, so I'm not attached to it. But I do know that what you're attempting to add was seen as inadequate by multiple editors. I think you're making it in good faith, but past discussions haven't shown a consensus for that text.__ E L A Q U E A T E 22:56, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

It was in there a long time (for as long as I recall), and was removed on 1 June by Darkfrog. It needs to be restored, because it's an issue that most Wikipedians get wrong (which is why recommending LQ is a bad idea, but if we're going to recommend it, we must at least make people aware of that point). SlimVirgin 23:43, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it was there a long time, and people constantly fought about it. There was a huge discussion after that, and the text was not re-included after it. At this point, I think that if we are putting Coca-cola on the menu, then we don't need a couple paragraphs explaining exactly what Pepsi is in great detail and how we don't have it. If you can think of a new way to explain it that will meet some kind of consensus, more power to you, but defining it as "part of the quoted material" was also fundamentally confusing to people. (Maybe I'll just come back here in a week and see if this newly opened can of worms was successfully dealt with, or if it's just a lengthy re-hash of all the arguments given a couple of months ago.)__ E L A Q U E A T E 00:05, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Elaqueate, I've been watching this page for years, and I don't recall anyone fighting about that particular sentence (This practice does not require placing final periods and commas inside or outside quotation marks all the time). We do need to warn editors that LQ does not mean sticking periods and commas outside. Can you point me to the discussion where there was consensus to remove it? SlimVirgin 16:21, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I've pointed you to the vigorous talk page discussion regarding the total wording of the section twice previously. The current section had its examples expanded to address that periods and commas shouldn't be placed outside in all situations. The very first example has the period on the inside, and currently illustrates what you say needs illustrating.__ E L A Q U E A T E 16:59, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

• I think that the line, This practice does not require placing final periods and commas inside or outside quotation marks all the time should be restored, because the key feature of LQ is that there is no definitive answer for every situation, or as Fowler says, "all signs of punctuation used with words in quotation marks must be placed according to the sense."(original emphasis). Rationalobserver (talk) 22:47, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

• That's a good way to put it. We ought to base this section on sources, rather than editors making up examples and descriptions of their own. SlimVirgin 23:45, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

You know... if policy/guidance really is descriptive and not proscriptive, then I would suggest the entire MOS could be shortened to: Just write as comes naturally to you. Someone will follow up and correct what ever errors you make (even if they are not errors). Then someone else will follow up and correct the correction... after which everyone will get into a long debate about what is and is not correct on the MOS talk page. Meanwhile you can go back to writing articles. That would accurately guide editors on what actual practice is. Blueboar (talk) 23:59, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Too logical__ E L A Q U E A T E 00:08, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) If LQ is required of all articles, then this whole section is proscriptive. The guideline is also missing Fowler's suggestion to replace a full stop with a comma and include that comma inside the marks when quoting a fragment that ended with a full stop mid-sentence. As written now, this section is sorely lacking in its attempt to explain what LQ is according to Fowler. It sounds like some editors made this up. Rationalobserver (talk) 00:05, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I think the LQ recommendation ought to go. Most publishers (and most Wikipedians) use inside punctuation. LQ is difficult to use correctly, and difficult to explain. But at the very least, the long-standing This practice does not require placing final periods and commas inside or outside quotation marks all the time should be restored, as should a description of inside punctuation for contrast.

I agree with Rationalobserver that the current version does not explain it well. Perhaps we should revert to before the May 2014 edits. SlimVirgin 00:14, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

This was the section on 28 May before the changes began. It seems clearer to me. SlimVirgin 00:16, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Okay, that's two of you. There was a massive RFC on this last year. Are there any new arguments that weren't brought up then? __ E L A Q U E A T E 00:22, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

That RfC wasn't worded neutrally (it made AQ sound as confusing as LQ, and mistakenly implied that Brits always use LQ), and it should have been hosted in a neutral venue. The MoS ought to be descriptive on this point, not prescriptive. We ought to describe both systems (using sources, rather than making up our own descriptions and examples), and request only internal consistency. SlimVirgin 00:29, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, I don't think that a name like J. R. R. Tolkien should have that many spaces after the initials, but it's Misplaced Pages's default style by consensus, and I would not demand that we include a paragraph about how my preferred way is popular and sensible. It's our style convention, even though it's not one I prefer myself. It sounds like you have a problem with the style and past consensus more than the wording.__ E L A Q U E A T E 00:43, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Place all punctuation marks inside the quotation marks if they are part of the quoted material and outside if they are not. As has been pointed out above, this doesn't always hold. As it is often described, LQ is about placement according to sense (i.e. *not* source).

This practice does not require placing final periods and commas inside or outside quotation marks all the time. I'm not sure that guidance of this type is needed. It is something that should only be added if there is clear consensus for it. In the event of such a consensus, I would say that wording is unclear and, as it is, not correct. In my experience, LQ does indeed place final stops and commas inside or outside quotations marks all the time. Never above, below or in the same place, but always inside or outside.

On the question of whether we should cite sources, we generally do not in the MoS, although I don't see why it should never be done. However, in the current case, there is consensus to use LQ on en.wp, nothing more. Which means we need to ensure that we are not taking an over-prescriptive approach, so we need to be sure that anything we cite is uncontroversial.

I don't think we should revert to May. Even if the current version can be improved upon, that particular action would definitely not be an improvement. Formerip (talk) 00:25, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Elaqueate, it's both. I think LQ shouldn't be recommended on WP because it's fussy and difficult to get right. It's a measure of how difficult it is that MoS editors have not been able to describe it clearly.

Most publishers don't use it. Most editors don't use it either, and of the few that do, most don't get it right. It's particularly difficult to use correctly on Misplaced Pages, because to do so you need access to the source, but our articles have multiple authors, many of whom don't have that access.

Given that we have STYLEVAR, CITEVAR and ENGVAR, it's puzzling that the MoS takes a different approach with this one, difficult, style issue – and now goes so far as to remove even a description of the more widely used, and much easier, alternative. SlimVirgin 14:42, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Looking at the WP:MOS, we don't list all of the alternatives, just because there are alternatives. There are different standards in the world for where to add a possessive "s", for how to capitalize titles, for how to add punctuation to abbreviations, etc. This isn't an article describing all of the world's options when it comes to these issues. (We do have an actual article for that, where all styles are documented.) There are many popular styles we don't mention, because there's no consensus to recommend using them. I don't agree with every convention we have in the MoS, but it's a document to show where consensus has fallen on certain broad style issues in the past. For the less common examples where the advice isn't helpful, there's common sense. I don't want to get into a drawn out debate over why there's a consensus of one over the other or why you prefer one. You're welcome to your opinion, some people share it, most others on Misplaced Pages seem to have disagreed. __ E L A Q U E A T E 15:32, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

(ec) I was amused to see such a collection of statements with which I disagree (I am referring to SlimVirgin's last post here):

• That a practice cannot easily be codified to the last jot and tittle is no argument to abandon it. In this instance, when what is "right" is confusing, the detail probably does not matter that much. We may as well abandon English.
• "Most ... don't use it"; "more widely used": this has no real relevance and sounds overstated anyway – which style to use is a choice; there are real benefits in a coherent choice of style; which style dominates in other contexts is not important.
• xxxVAR: These are all symptoms of a lack of uniformity, but at root they are a rule to keep the status quo rather than warring. They are not at root motivating an introduction of style variation, which is what you seem to be motivating. ENGVAR is a particularly thorny one, not to be emulated.

—Quondum 15:38, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: your comments above reinforce my concern that you are attempting to change the consensus view rather than clarify it. If you have such strong feelings against LQ, then you probably shouldn't be making these edits. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:15, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment The situation is somewhat more complicated than some of the discussion above implies. The English Misplaced Pages uses the same quotation marks for different purposes, including actual quotation, scare-quotes, and indicating a mention of a word rather than a use. For the last two, the advice is very simple: never include the punctuation within the quote marks. For quote marks used to indicate actual quotation, it is indeed hard to give clear advice, as we discovered in previous RfCs and discussions. However, TQ doesn't solve the problem entirely since it only applies to commas and full stops/periods. You still have to decide where to place colons and semicolons, for example, although these cases are admittedly less frequent. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:10, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I think an issue that is complicating this process involves the varied interpretations of multiple editors. I suggest that we start by identifying which source we should use as a primary guide. I assume that source is Fowler, so why not re-write the guideline as a direct paraphrase of what Fowler actually suggests, and limit this section in perpetuity to only that which can be directly sourced to Fowler? In my Burchfield edition from 2004, Fowler outlines what we call logical quotation with two overview sections and eight sub-sections. Maybe we should attempt to structure this guideline similarly. I.e., as long as this section is subject to the opinions of editors we will not achieve a lasting consensus. However, if we all agree to only add that which is consistent with Fowler, we will arrive at a lasting consensus that is both accurate to external style guides and relatively easy to follow. Rationalobserver (talk) 18:10, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the degree to which there actually are varied interpretations of multiple editors here, RO. AFAICT, no-one actually disagrees with what is in the current version (unless I've missed it). It's more about whether we should be recommending LQ in the first place and/or particular introductory remarks would be useful. But what I would say is that we should not defer to any particular usage guide. If there are differences between different authorities, then what we should do is advise both or neither. Plus, from a copyright point-of-view, we can't just paraphrase Fowler's. Formerip (talk) 22:03, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

As I said above when opening this thread, the guideline as written is not 100% accurate to Fowler.

does not require placing final periods and commas inside or outside the quotation marks all the time, but maintains their original positions in (or absence from) the quoted material.

This is not 100% accurate to LQ as described by Fowler, because a reproduction of what is technically a complete sentence does not necessarily justify inclusion of the full stop inside the quote marks, even when the full stop is present in the source material. E.g., if the quoted fragment does not represent the author's complete thought as presented in the source material. Fowler gives this sentence as an example:

Do not follow a multitude to do evil.

If we quoted a portion of that material that was also a complete sentence, such as We need not "follow a multitude to do evil", the full stop would not, according to Fowler, belong inside, because the quoted portion does not reproduce the author's complete thought. If we aren't basing this guideline on Fowler, then which style guide are we using? Have we invented a system that we call LQ from consensus of editor opinion? Rationalobserver (talk) 15:47, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Umm, that's not the guideline as written; please note that you seem to be quoting the removed sentence as if it was in the guideline now. Many editors agreed with you that the description that contained "maintains their original positions" had problems of sense. That's why we don't have the wording now, and why it was removed in June. __ E L A Q U E A T E 16:06, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

My bad. I hadn't looked back the guideline since SlimVirgin's recent edits were reverted. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:47, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Technically, it does not matter whether whether WP follows any external style guide, nor whether it chooses to apply the name LQ at slight variance to other style guides, and indeed it does not matter whether the style can be sourced. The purpose of a MoS is to set a style, and this inherently will be done via a consensus between the editors.

That said, using another style guide in refinements to the MoS can be helpful. —Quondum 16:18, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I hear you, but that's not really my point, which has more to do with attempting to gain consensus amongst numerous editors without any frame of reference. I would bet that 90% of our MoS is taken directly from external style guides anyway, even if they aren't mentioned in-line by name. The way I see it, our style guide should be consistent with external style guides whenever it's not Misplaced Pages specific. This years-long dispute will never end as long as you and others hold the opinion that we can make this up as we go, and that we can create an LQ system that is not consistent with any one particular style guide. Having said that, I guess local consensus does trump all external logic and reasoning, and I think I'll just disengage here, as this is a mess that nobody wants to correct in any lasting way. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:47, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

One last point that I'll reiterate is that the guideline is currently missing Fowler's suggestion to replace a full stop with a comma and include that comma inside the marks when quoting – mid-sentence – a fragment that originally ended with a full stop. E.g., if the source material reads: Some dog breeds are obedient, and others are gentle but not obedient., and we quote the last portion: According to John, some dog breeds are "not obedient," but others are., because the quoted fragment ends with a full stop, that full stop should be replaced with an inside comma, per Fowler. Rationalobserver (talk) 17:05, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Understood, and I don't disagree. But what we have is probably going to remain a poor reflection of a comprehensive style because it does not make sense to devote as much space to it as a comprehensive style guide does.

The example that you give here is unfortunate, since one would never include the period terminating the sentence with a sentence fragment. Hence, it would not be there to be replaced by a comma. Besides, the MoS already does in a sense include your final point: it says: "Where a quoted sentence is followed by a clause identifying the speaker, a comma should be used in place of a full-stop ", though I've now reworded this to apply to other clauses. —Quondum 19:54, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I think it looks better now, and to clarify, all I meant was that because the source material being quoted included a full stop – e.g., "not obedient.", that full stop is replaced with a comma that is included, whereas the full stop, as you pointed out, would have been omitted because the quoted portion is not a complete sentence. However, if the quoted portion was "John is not obedient.", the same rule would apply when quoting this complete sentence mid-sentence. I.e., the full stop should be swapped out with a comma that is included inside the quote marks even though the original text did not have a comma in that position. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:04, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I apologize for being obtuse; I should have phrased my reply to acknowledge what was obviously your intent. —Quondum 21:35, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Rationalobsever, please could you give a citation for this thing about commas mid-sentence? As far as I can see, Fowler's recommends on p 647 that closing points should generally be omitted if the quote occurs before the end of sentence and not replaced by a comma (this is in section iii), but that a comma is used to represent the stop where what follows is "such words as he said" (section iv). This is the same advice as given by the Oxford Guide to English usage. So, I'm very unsure that the change made to the page was appropriate. Formerip (talk) 22:05, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

FormerIP, on page 647, in IV, a semi-colon is turned into a comma, and included inside the quote marks. Fowler says that "any punctuation at the point where it is broken off, a comma is placed within the quotation marks to represent this." Rationalobserver (talk) 00:49, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

You've quoted half a sentence, though. The full sentence is

When a quotation is broken off and resumed after such words as he said, if it would naturally have had any punctuation at the point where it is broken off, a comma is placed within the quotation marks to represent this.

This only seems to apply in the specific case of a clause identifying the speaker, as per the current guidance, not to any case where a quotation occurs mid-sentence. Formerip (talk) 16:38, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

How so? It seems to apply to whenever the quotation is interrupted, and has little or nothing to do with identification of the speaker. If you want to interpret the example too narrowly, you risk confining it to the specific phrase "he said". The simplest alternative is to interpret it as any interrupting clause. —Quondum 19:21, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

That's a different suggestion to what has been made above. I'm not sure, though, that it's really possible to have a clause interrupting a quotation other than one identifying the speaker particularly in an encyclopaedic style. Can you think of an example? Formerip (talk) 21:21, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

My copyedit that you reverted was just trying to make it read better. But there's a bigger issue in the immediately preceding edits, such as this one in which the advice for whether the comma goes inside or out seems to be explicitly contradictory now, whereas before it was only slightly so. We need to decide which to recommend, or clarify the conditions that would make it go one way or the other. Dicklyon (talk) 22:57, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, that was just me not paying attention to my own revert. I've done it properly now. Formerip (talk) 23:05, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I've been trying to formulate a short description of the rules behind LQ, which has resulted in me feeling that the bit on the comma that is already there is an intrusion of an AQ rule into the LQ framework. Whatever the case may be, the piece on the comma substitution seems a little inconsistent as it stands. It would be nice to clarify the position on this. —Quondum 23:35, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I can't follow who is arguing what here, but I want to support Rationalobserver's point about sourcing this to Fowler (and citing it), not making up examples and descriptions of our own, and not leaving out key points. I also can't see a reason to leave out a brief description of the more-common alternative style (commas and periods always inside). SlimVirgin 16:29, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

FTR, Fowler addresses the "alternative style" in Quotation marks, section 3, which he calls the American English style. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:42, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, my Cambridge Guide to English Usage calls this a North American practice,(2004, p.454) and my edition of New Hart's Rules calls it a US practice.(2005, p.155) Rationalobserver (talk) 19:42, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Most style guides refer to these as British and American, or North American, style. The obvious solution is to make it an ENGVAR choice. There has been resistance to doing that, because American style is also used in the UK (in British fiction, in particular).

But that just makes it all the more puzzling that we force the less-popular and more-difficult style on the entire English Misplaced Pages, including in North American articles, where readers are less likely to have encountered it before. SlimVirgin 20:25, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

"we force ... more-difficult style" that is an opinion not a fact (I think LQ is simpler and less confusing) and I think you ought to qualify such statements by indicating that it is you opinion and not a fact. You are in favour of wording in the MOS that forces reference tags after punctuation, is it not hypocritical of you to support one universal rule that you like and then complain about another that you do not? -- PBS (talk) 21:03, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

It's interesting to look back at the archives and see how many editors deny this obvious fact. It's almost as though they know it's an EngVar issue, but they take the approach that it is not so that nobody can say that the BrE system is being forced on AmE articles, but as far as I can tell, it is. I agree that punctuation within quotations should be dealt with in the same way that we deal with the other EngVar issues, but I would be very surprised if a consensus would form around that, though I'm really not too certain why it isn't an option. Implementing LQ can be tedious for many AmE editors, whereas the so-called American Style could not be more simple. The previous RfC's suggest that this is – for no apparent reason – Misplaced Pages's EngVar exception, whereby AmE editors are not afforded the opportunity to reject LQ in favor of the American style, even if local consensus agrees, which seems like a very strange situation indeed. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:46, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

My own preference is that it be a STYLEVAR issue, i.e. the first major contributor chooses. But failing that, ENGVAR would solve the years-long controversy about it, and would make the MoS consistent with what most editors do anyway. SlimVirgin 20:56, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Capitalization of animal breeds

There is no mention of capitalizing animal breeds in the MOS, but a group of editors over at Talk:Brumby seems to think this is an accepted practice and/or possibly a "gray area." I would like to see some mention of this in the MOS, either pro or con, so that the area is no longer gray. This would obviate a lot of future conflicts. For the record, I don't see any reason to capitalize breed names -- this goes against the rules of standard English in just about any recognized professional style book or dictionary you care to name. Krychek (talk) 15:21, 22 September 2014 (UTC)